331.8T 

01<.4. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 
BULLETIN 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


Issued  Semi-Monthly  By 
THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 
Norman,  Oklahoma 
NEW  SERIES  NO  224.  EXTENSION  NO.  64 

SEPTEMBER  15,  1921 


UNIVERSITY    OF  OKLAHOMA 
BULLETIN 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 

RESOLVED: 
That  the  policy  of  the  Open  Shop  should  be 
adopted  in  the  United  States. 


'.•cRsmfOFiiiaf3iC7,-, 

JUL  3  0  ,923 


JOSEPH  ERNEST  McAFEE,  Editor 
J.  W.  SCROGGS, 
Extension  Division, 
Department  of  Public  Discussion  and  Debate. 


-33/. t 


FOREWORD 

This  pamphlet  is  designd  primarily  for  the  use  of  high  school 
debating  teams  in  the  state  of  Oklahoma.  These  are  boys  and 
girls  in  their  teens. 

The  pamphlet  is  not  a  primer.  It  does  not  talk  down  to 
its  readers.  Yet  it  aims  to  talk  directly  to  them.  It  is  a  stu- 
dents' manual  rather  than  an  encyclopedia  or  a  dictionary. 

In  the  address  to  the  debaters  which  opens  the  pamphlet,  a 
working  kit  is  recommended.  Little  of  the  material  included  in 
the  three  publications  there  mentioned  is  included  in  this 
volume.  ^lost  of  the  material  here  used  has  been  issued  since 
January,  1921.  The  debater  is  askt  to  seek  material  which  came 
out  before  that  date  in  the  three  publications  named,  and  thru 
the  bibliographies  to  be  found  in  two  of  the  three. 

This  explanaton  of  the  aim  of  the  pamphlet  will  show  also  why 
no  bibliography  is  included.  Such  exhaustive  and  admirable 
lists  will  be  in  the  debaters'  hands  in  these  other  publications 
that  another  here  would  needlessly  cumber  space  better  em- 
ployd  otherwise. 

This  also  explains  the  absence  of  an  index  in  this  pamphlet. 
The  material  is  so  arranged  as  to  enable  the  reader  quickly  to 
find  the  kind  of  material  he  may  be  seeking,  and  since  no  at- 
tempt is  made  to  treat  any  phase  of  the  subject  exhaustively, 
an  index  would  add  little  or  nothing  to  the  serviceableness  of 
the  pamphlet. 

The  material  is  arranged  in  five  general  divisions,  as  follows: 

THE  DEBATE,  being  an  address  to  the  debaters  who  are 
to  use  the  pamphlet. 

MAINY  FOR  THE  AFFIRMATIVE,  presenting  articles 
and  discussions  from  those  who  contend  for  the  open  shop  in 
American  industry. 

MAINLY  FOR  THE  NEGATIVE,  presenting  articles  and 
discussions  from  those  who  oppose  the  campaign  for  the  open 
shop,  either  proposing  an  alternative  in  the  unionized  shop,  or 
who  on  some  other  ground  disapprove  of  the  employers'  cam- 
paign. 

GENERAL  DISCUSSION,  being  quotations  and  discus- 


4  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


sions  which  bear  now  on  one  side  of  the  question  and  now  on  the 
other. 

BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  QESTION,  being  in  the  nature  of 
a  summary  of  the  discussion,  to  assist  debaters  in  balancing 
the'r  arguments. 

The  pamphlet  contains  no  "briefs"  for  either  side.  Debaters 
of  independent  mind  will  prefer  to  make  their  own  briefs,  and 
those  who  seek  them  already  prepared  will  find  them  workt  out 
in  extreme  detail  in  one  of  the  publications  recommended  for 
the  debater's  "kit". 

As  is  frequently  pointed  out  in  the  bulletin,  our  question 
opens  all  phases  of  the  labor  problem.  A  masterly  handling  of 
the  subject  will  r-?quire  wide  reading  and  a  comprehensive  study. 
And  no  study  will  serve  more  effectively  to  prepare  boys  and 
girls  for  intelligent  and  efficient  citizenship.  No  public  question 
is  more  important  than  ours  at  this  time,  if  all  its  bearings  and 
implications  are  reckond  in. 

Each  debater  may  well  keep  an  eye  open  for  all  the  dis- 
cussion of  industrial  questions,  the  relations  of  capital  and  labor, 
of  employer  and  employe,  the  activities  of  large  corporations  in 
the  organization  of  labor,  and  of  the  labor  unions.  Watch  the 
daily  and  weekly  and  monthly  press.  There  is  no  knowing  what 
valuable  fresh  m.aterial  you  may  there  find,  in  addition  to  that 
here  presented  and  to  be  found  thru  the  other  publications  here- 
in recommended. 

Industrial  orf^anization  is  one  of  the  great  subjects  pressing 
upon  the  attention  of  all  the  American  people. 

So  much  of  the  work  of  the  preparation  of  this  bulletin  has 
been  done  by  Mr.  Joseph  Ernest  McAfee  of  thz  Department  of 
Communit}^  Inst.'tutes  that  his  name  is  given  as  the  editor. 
University  of  Oklahoma,  J.  W.  SCROGGS. 

September  1921. 


THE  DEBATE 


TO  THE  DEBATERS: 

This  bulletin  is  not  intended  to  serve  as  an  encyclopedia. 
It  will  scarcely  more  than  introduce  you  to  the  subject  it  treats. 
Our  whole  economic  system  is  being  stird  to  its  depths  by  the 
controversy  now  raging  around  this  question  of  the  open  shop 
in  industry.  Literature  is  rolling  off  the  presses  by  the  ton. 
There  is  much  discussion  in  the  general  magazines  and  news- 
papers, but  there  is  far  more  in  trade  organs,  in  pamphlets,  in 
paid  advertisements  and  in  the  varied  media  of  organized  pro- 
paganda. Employers  are  banded  together  in  this  interest  as 
they  have  rarely  been  in  connection  with  any  other  movement. 

This  docs  not  mean  that  employers  are  a  unit  in  their 
advocacy  of  one  side  of  the  controversy.  There  are  some  who  out- 
spokenly oppose  the  campaign,  and  others  who  are  working 
along  new  lines  in  industrial  organization,  where  they  are  carried 
out  of  the  current  of  the  present  controversy.  They  feel  that 
the  strife  for  and  against  the  open  shop  leads  into  a  blind  alley, 
brings  on  a  deadlock  between  two  opposing  forces.  They  be- 
lieve that  neither  can  finally  win.  The  salvation  of  our  indus- 
trial system  must  come  thru  a  different  approach  which  will  le^ve 
this  open-closed  shop  controversy  on  one  side,  and  mak'*  jt  un- 
necessary to  decide  between  either  of  the  warring  hos'.s. 

There  is  thus  every  reason  to  urge  each  deb:tter  to  equip 
himself  with  the  best  and  most  conclusive  liter-^cure  on  the  sub- 
ject.   This  bulletin  will  only  get  you  start^,d. 

A  Working  Kit  ■ 

In  addition  to  this  pamphlet  each  debating  team  is  urged 
to  secure  the  following  publications: 

THE  CLOSED  SHOP.  Last  Edition.  L.  T.  Eeman.  Pub- 
lisht  by  the  H.  W,  Wilson  Company.  White  Plains,  New  York. 
$1.25. 

OPEN  SHOP  ENCYCLOPEDIA.  Prepared  by  the  Open 
Shop  department  of  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers. 
50  Church  Street.  New  York  City. 

THE  OPEN  SHOP  DRIVE.    Who  is  Behind  it  and  Where 


6 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


is  it  Going?    By  Savel  Zimand,  of  the  Bureau  of  Industrial  Re- 
search, 289  Fourth  Avenue,  New  York  City.  50c. 
A  word  about  each. 

The  first  named  is  the  latest  in  the  well-known  Hand  Book 
Series  specially  prepared  for  the  use  of  debaters.  It  is  bound  in 
boards,  as  the  other  publications  mentiond  are  not.  It  deals 
with  both  sides  of  the  question,  gives  an  elaborate  ''brief"  for 
each  side,  and  the  body  of  the  volume  is  a  series  of  articles 
quoted  from  recent  literature,  book  and  periodical,  on  both  sides 
of  the  question  and  in  general  discussion.  Do  not  confuse  it 
with  the  earlier  volume  in  the  same  series  dealing  with  the  same 
question  under  a  different  title,  and  published  in  1910  or  1912. 
This  volume  recommended  to  you  was  publisht  in  February, 
1921,  and  thus  is  almost  the  latest  material  available. 

The  second  publication  named  is  not  true  to  its  title.  It  is 
not  an  encyclopedia.  It  deals  with  only  one  side  of  the  ques- 
tion. It  is  a  great  massing  of  material  for  the  use  of  those  who 
believe  in  the  open  shop  and  who  wish  to  prove  they  are  right. 
It  is  a  bulky  pamphlet  of  248  pages.  No  price  is  set  upon  it,  and 
probably  each  debating  team  will  be  supplied  a  copy  free  by  the 
department  which  issues  it.  It  is  an  important  feature  of  the 
employers'  campaign  which  has  been  organized  all  over  the 
country  for  winning  the  open  shop  thruout  American  industry. 

The  third  recommended  is  on  the  other  side  of  the  question. 
It  is  not  so  exclusively  partisan  as  is  the  so-called  encyclopedia, 
but  the  author  makes  it  clear  that  he  is  seeking  to  expose  the 
animus  of  a  campaign  which  in  his  judgment  is  unjust  to  labor 
and  inimical  to  the  public  interests.  It  is  a  pamphlet  of  61 
pages,  and  the  material  is  all  carefully  selected.  The  Bureau 
which  publishes  it  sets  a  price  of  fifty  cents,  but  the  writer  is 
informed  that  a  special  rate  of  twenty-five  cents  is  granted  to 
all  students. 

Bibliography 

Our  pamphlet  does  not  contain  a  bibliography.  But  two  of 
the  publications  recommended  above  contain  admirable  book 
lists,  and  references  to  periodicals.  In  the  Hand-Book,  "The 
Closed  Shop",  the  bibliography  is  most  exhaustive,  not  to  say 
absolutely  exhausting.  Probably  nothing  of  any  value  recently 
publisht  up  to  the  date  of  the  issue  of  the  book  has  been  omitted. 

A  much  better  working  book-and-periodical  list  appears  in 
the  last  mentiond  publication,  "The  Open  Shop  Drive." 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


7 


With  these  helps  any  debater  can  go  quite  as  far  as  his 
time  and  library  resources  will  permit  him  to  go.  New  pro- 
paganda literature  is  appearing  all  the  time.  While  the  question 
has  been  pretty  well  thresht  out  in  the  general  press,  yet  new 
articles  appear  in  the  magazines  frequently. 

If  you  will  file  your  name  with  the  Open  Shop  Department 
of  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  50  Church  Street, 
Xew  York  City,  and  with  the  offices  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  Washington,  D.  C,  probably  considerable  pamphlet 
and  leaflet  material  can  be  sent  you.  In  the  former  case  no 
price  seems  to  be  set  upon  the  publications.  The  Federation  of 
Labor  is  apparently  not  so  well  supplied  with  propaganda  funds, 
and  makes  a  charge  on  most  of  its  leaflets  and  pamphlets 
Purpose  of  the  Debate 

It  is  not  to  decide  this  momentous  question.  Fortunately 
or  unfortunately  we  do  not  have  the  chance  to  decide  it.  Reason 
and  the  public  interest  do  not  as  yet  appear  to  be  controlling 
factors  in  practical  decisions  in  this  field.  You  will  be  pro- 
foundly impresst  with  the  manner  in  which  self-interest  and 
class-interest  seem  to  dominate.  Few  questions  are  now  so 
cumberd  with  clap-trap,  efforts  to  play  to  the  galleries,  and 
cloud  real  isues  with  appeal  to  sacred  principles  of  Americanism. 
Debaters  on  both  sides  will  be  imprest  with  this. 

The  purpose  of  the  debate  is  not  to  cram  you  with  informa- 
tion on  the  basis  of  which  "you  can  take  .a  determining  hand 
when  you  have  finisht  your  course  of  study  and  have  enterd  in- 
dustry, either  as  a  laborer  or  an  employer.  By  that  time  the 
industrial  situation  may  have  entirely  changed,  and  the  present 
controversy  be  an  inconsequential  relic  of  history.  You  are 
debating  a  question  which  is  decidedly  open,  and  should  be 
treated  with  an  open  mind.  The  decision  reacht  today  may  need 
to  be  reverst  tomorrow,  or  the  whole  controversy  set  aside  to 
make  way  for  a  new  approach  to  the  whole  question. 

The  purpose  of  the  debate  is  not  even  to  give  you  a  chance 
to  win.  The  peril  of  debating  primarily  to  win  for  one  side  or 
the  other  is  now  so  generally  recognized  that  the  debating  sys- 
tem in  some  states  has  been  re-organized  so  as  to  test  each  in- 
dividual and  each  team  for  its  ability  in  all-'round  thinking  and 
discussion,  rather  than  for  his  or  its  abilty  to  win  by  any  and 
every  device. 

The  decision,  so  far  as  a  decision  was  rendered,  in  the  famous 


8 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


Lincoln-Douglas  debate  in  Illinois,  before  the  Civil  War,  was 
given  to  Douglas.  If  Lincoln  had  died  the  day  after  it  closed, 
the  general  comment  would  have  been  that  a  rough-and-ready, 
sincere  and  likable  sort  of  a  chap  had  made  a  good  try,  but  that 
he  was  betting  on  the  wrong  horse,  and  his  losing  was  a  fore- 
gone conclusion.  It  is  too  bad  that  our  school  debates  cannot 
by  some  device  be  given  something  like  the  reality  which  such 
discussions  have  in  adult  life,  so  that,  win  or  lose,  the  debaters 
with  real  insight  and  conviction  may  finally  get  his  reward.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  each  debater  who  throws  himself  into  our  dis- 
cussion, not  to  make  the  worse  appear  the  better  reason,  but 
to  get  at  the  truth,  and  make  the  truth  weigh  for  all  its  sub- 
stance, wall  find  a  great  reward,  one  which  far  transcends  the 
value  of  a  decision  this  way  or  that  from  never-so-wise-and-just 
a  group  of  judges. 

Thoro  Think'ng 

The  real  purpose  of  our  debate  is  thus  to  bring  you  to  sus- 
taind,  comprehensive,  balanced,  and  unprejudiced  thinking,  and 
to  cultivate  the  power  to  express  your  thoughts  with  convincing 
ef¥ect. 

It  is  of  the  greatest  moment  in  securing  this  and  that  a  real 
live  question  like  ours  should  have  been  chosen.  You  can  work 
up  genuine  enthusiasm  over  it.  You  will  be  identified  with  the 
industrial  system  in  some  connection  very  soon,  actively 
identified,  and  it  makes  a  vast  deal  of  difference  how  this  ques- 
tion is  handld  today  and  tomorrow.  It  makes  a  difference  to 
you  right  away,  and  the  difference  will  be  felt  all  the  rest  of  your 
life.  If  it  does  nothing  else,  this  debate  ought  to.  open  your 
eyes  to  the  peril  of  class-spirit,  an  unreasoning  and  self-in- 
terested partisanship.  You  will  be  tempted  again  and  again  to 
cry  out  with  the  prince  of  ancient  Florence  where  two  rival 
families  of  the  nobility  were  forever  scrapping  with  each  other, 
and  filling  the  streets  with  their  broils.  His  patience  was  finally 
exhausted  and  he  calld  down  "A  plague  upon  both  your  houses!" 

But  his  impatience  did  not  quell  the  broils  nor  establish 
peace.  And  neither  will  yours.  This  question  is  distressingly 
confused  and  complicated  by  senseless  bickering,  but  it  will  not 
be  settld  by  your  turning  away  in  disgust.  The  question  itself 
rises  above  the  claptrap  and  self-seeking  which  vitiates  much 
of  the  argument  employd  to  support  now  one  and  now  the  other 
side. 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


9 


The  very  fact  that  3'ou  are  not  just  now  in  the  thick  of  the 
tray  will  enable  you  to  rise  with  the  real  question,  and  see  big- 
ger and  clearer  than  do  the  partisans  thru  whose  oceans  of  dis- 
cussion you  are  calld  upon  to  wade.  And  if  you  will  cultivate 
the  kind  of  thinking  which  alone  will  make  head  and  tail  of  this 
confusion  of  words  and  ideas,  it  will  give  you  a  balance  which 
you  will  not  entirely  lose  when  you  are  yourself  forced  into  the 
fray  ,or  one  like  it  in  coming  years.  You  will  often  find  yourself 
pra3'ing,  as  you  study  this  question,  "The  Lord  save  the  society 
of  my  day  from  this  kind  of  a  mix-up!"  He  will  not  answer  your 
prayer  if  you  carry  into  it  the  same  kind  of  narrowness  and 
partisan  spirit  which  afTlicts  so  many  of  the  leaders  of  the  pre- 
sent controversy. 

The  Plan  of  the  Bulletin 

The  plan  of  our  bulletin  is  transparent.  At  the  first  are 
articles  and  discussions  which  mainly  support  the  affirmative 
of  the  question.  Then  follow  articles  and  discussion  mainly 
supporting  the  negative.  Then  there  will  be  found  short  sections 
of  general  discussion,  partly  supporting  one  side  and  partly  the 
other.  And  finally,  in  a  brief  sketch,  the  attempt  is  made  to  set 
forth  the  weaknesses  and  strength  of  either  side  of  the  question. 

As  already  stated,  this  bulletin  does  not  give  a  bibliography. 
Nor  does  it  detail  questions  for  study.  That  sort  of  material 
is  fully  worked  out  in  the  additional  publications  above  recom- 
mended, and  it  would  involve  needless  expense  to  duplicate  their 
lists  here.  It  is  most  important  that  the  three  publications  re- 
commended should  be  secured.  The  expense  may  be  an  em- 
barrassment to  a  few.  Follow  the  suggestion  made:  that  the 
debaters  of  opposing  teams  in  the  same  town  unite  in  securing 
a  set  of  the  publications.  If  you  have  not  the  necesary  small 
sum  of  money  between  you,  your  principal  will  see  that  school 
funds  supply  you,  or  that  interested  citizens  of  your  town  pro- 
vide the  small  sum  needed. 

This  is  a  man-size  question,  and  is  just  as  good  for  the 
girls  as  for  the  boys.  Those  of  you  who  master  this  question 
will  be  far  on  your  way  toward  that  goal  of  intelligent  citizen- 
ship which  the  society  'of  today  so  seriously  lacks,  and  which 
the  society  of  your  day  must  gain  if  it  is  to  survive  and  make 
progress.  A  fair  field,  good  luck,  and  a  real  triumph  to  each  of 
you,  win  or  lose! 


MAINLY  FOR  THE  AFFIRMATIVE 


CLOSED  SHOP  ARBITRARY  AND  INEFFICIENT 

Walter  Drew  is  Counsel  for  the  National  Erectors'  Asso- 
ciation of  New  York,  an  organization  of  employers.  He  was 
an  important  witness  before  the  Industrial  Relations  Commis- 
sion in  May  of  1915.  The  following  extended  discussion  by  him 
is  an  address  which  has  been  recently  publisht  in  a  leaflet  or 
pamphlet  by  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  of  the 
United  States  of  America.  It  is  their  pamphlet  Number  49. 
Copies  can  be  secured  free  by  addressing  their  offices  at  50 
Church  Street,  New  York  City.  It  is  printed  here  as  setting 
forth  clearly  the  point  of  view  of  large  numbers  of  employers, 
and,  as  may  be  assumed  from  a  statement  in  the  text,  a  large 
number  of  the  Chambers  of  Commerce  throughout  the  United 
States.  The  publication  bears  the  title:  "The  Open  or  Closed 
Shop?" 

If  signs  are  not  misleading,  the  public  considers  the  labor 
question  its  most  important  present  problem.  The  reason  is  not 
hard  to  find.  During  the  war  people  generally  came  to  under- 
stand that  the  real  battle  was  a  battle,  not  of  armies,  but  of 
workshops.  Now  that  the  war  is  over,  we  find  ourselves  with  all 
its  waste  and  destruction  to  be  replaced,  as  well  as  with  several 
years  of  neglected  work  to  be  made  up.  In  the  face  of  this  great 
need  we  find  industry  with  reduced  efficiency  and  impaired 
morale.  Small  v/onder,  then,  that  Society  should  discover  that 
it  has  a  vital  concern  in  the  matter  of  how  and  under  what 
conditions  its  work  is  performd. 

Today  we  are  to  consider  some  of  the  aspects  of  the  work 
problem  which  have  to  do  with  the  question  of  the  open  or 
closed  shop.  And  upon  this  question  it  is  significant  to  note 
that  public  opinion  is  showing  a  definite  and  decided  trend.  From 
one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other — in  hundreds  of  cities  and 
in  nearly  every  state — open  shop  movements  embracing  entire 
communities  have  sprung  up  during  the  past  year.  The  main 
feature  of  these  movements  is  that  they  have  been  largely 
spontaneous  and  have  proceeded  either  from  the  general  public 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


11 


or  from  business  and  commercial  organizations  which  in  times 
past  have  maintained  a  neutral  attitude  on  labor  matters. 

Who  would  have  dreamd  three  years  ago  that  the  Cleveland 
Chamber  of  Commerce  would  declare  in  favor  of  the  open  shop? 
Or  that  the  United  States  Chamber  of  Commerce  would  sub- 
mit the  question  of  the  open  shop  to  its  membership  for  a  refer- 
endum vote?  And  do  you  recall  that  on  that  referendum,  1665 
Chambers  of  Commerce  and  other  business  organizations  voted 
in  favor  of  the  open  shop  declaration,  and  only  4  voted  against 
it?  Many  of  those  Chambers  of  Commerce  today  are  actively 
engaged  in  local  open  shop  efforts. 

Now  it  happens,  also,  that  during  the  war,  and  largely 
through  the  use  of  the  wartime  powers  of  Government  by  a 
friendly  administration,  organized  labor  doubld  its  membership 
and  rcacht  the  high  water  mark  of  its  power  and  influence  in  this 
country.  The  verdict  now  being  registerd  against  it  in  so  many 
communities  is  largely  the  result  of  the  use  which  organized 
labor  made  of  that  power  during  the  war  and  in  the  period  fol- 
lowing while  the  abnormal  demand  for  labor  still  continud.  But 
you  are  not  here  to  accept  the  verdict  of  others,  but  rather  to 
endeavor  to  arrive  at  one  of  your  own.  It  is  the  public  weak- 
ness to  seek  always  for  heroes  or  scapegoats,  and  having  paid 
homage  to  the  one  or  meted  out  punishment  to  the  other,  to 
forget  the  matter.  The  present  disfavor  in  which  the  unions 
find  themselves  is  much  like  that  which  only  a  few  years  ago 
was  directed  against  combinations  of  capital.  And  at  that 
time,  you  remember,  all  business  was  under  suspicion  and  the 
good  business  man  sufYerd  with  the  bad. 

The  great  fact  is  that  we  are  all  human  and  actuated  by 
much  the  same  motives  and  impulses.  Different  groups  or 
classes  of  men  average  up  much  the  same.  For  the  bride-taker, 
you  have  the  bribe-giver.  For  the  grasping  union  man,  you 
have  the  profiteer,  and  for  the  human  tendency  to  abuse  power 
not  accompanid  by  due  responsibility  you  have  all  of  us.  Power 
without  full  and  proper  responsibility  for  its  use — that  was  the 
trouble  with  the  business  combinations,  and  that  is  the  trouble 
today  with  unionism.  To  call  labor  leaders  hard  names  or  to 
send  a  Brindell  or  two  to  jail  will  not  improve  matters  so  long 
as  the  condition  continues  which  made  abuse  and  exploitation 
possible.  What  is  most  needed  in  connection  with  the  labor 
question  is  truth  and  clear  thinking,  less  heat  and  more  light. 


\2  THE  UKIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 

Sympathy  and  Wages 
A  few  weeks  ago,  a  distinguisht  gentleman,  Mr.  Clarence 
Darrow,  spoke  to  you  from  the  platform  in  defense  of  the 
closed  shop.  He  said,  I  believe,  that  the  question  was 
largely  one  of  point  of  view — whether  you  were  for  captain  or 
for  labor.  As  for  him,  his  sympathies  were  with  the  worker 
and  he  wanted  him  to  have  more.  In  Mr.  Darrow's  home  city, 
the  building  trades  workers,  wih  their  closed-shop  control,  have 
monopoly  wages  for  which  they  give  a  very  low  output.  They 
refuse  to  reduce  tneir  present  rate  of  $1.25  an  hour.  Only  one- 
third  of  them  are  employd  in  spite  of  the  great  need  for  hous- 
ing. Aside  from  the  question  of  public  welfare,  is  it  better  for 
these  workers  themselves  to  maintain  this  condition  rather  than 
to  seek  employment  for  all  thru  a  lower  wage  and  increast  effi- 
ciency? 

In  open-shop  Los  Angeles,  the  number  of  wage-earners  in 
the  period  from  1899  to  914  increast  from  5,173  to  31,352,  an  in- 
crease of  approximately  500  per  cent.  Oakland,  Seattle,  Port- 
land and  other  Western  cities  showd  increases  in  the  same 
period  of  100  to  200  per  cent.  In  closed  shop  San  Francisco,  where 
the  industrial  life  of  the  city  had  been  absolutely  dominated  by 
organized  labor,  there  was  a  decrease  in  the  number  of  wage- 
earners  from  32,555  to  31,758,  in  spite  of  the  great  natural  advan- 
tage which  San  Francisco  had  over  the  other  cities.  Without 
considering  the  great  increase  in  the  Coast  population,  the  in- 
dustries of  San  Francisco  were  not  even  supporting  as  many 
workers  as  they  did  twenty  years  ago.  Is  this  a  good  thing  for 
the  workers? 

In  England  the  worker  generally  receives  a  half  or  a  third 
of  the  American  wage  for  similar  work,  and  under  the  rules  of 
his  union  does  a  half  or  a  third  of  the  work  done  by  the  Ameri- 
can. Is  not  this  ratio  between  wage  and  output  illuminating, 
and  is  it  not  clear  that  even  the  closed-shop  power  of  the  union 
is  not  able  to  force  the  payment  of  a  wage  out  of  proportion  to 
the  v>-orker's  production?  It  may  be  possible,  then,  that  the 
closed  shop  means  less  instead  of  more  for  the  working  man. 

But  the  question  of  wages  is  not  one  of  sympathy,  or,  in 
ihe  long  run,  of  union  power.  The  sympathetic  employer  who 
pays  more  than  the  business  warrants  will  find  himself  out  of 
business,  and  the  union  whose  power  forces  a  price  for  labor 
above  what  the  market  will  absorb  will  find  its  members  with- 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


13 


out  work. 

In  1840,  according  to  figures  of  the  National  Industrial 
Conference  Board,  the  average  wage  of  labor  in  this  country  for 
artisans  was  $8.10  per  week,  and  for  common  labor  $4.90  per 
week,  or  a  little  more  than  half.  In  1915  the  artisan's  wage  was 
$19.90  per  week,  and  that  of  the  common  laborer,  $1075,  or  still 
a  little  more  than  half.  During  the  war  the  rate  of  artisans 
increast  to  $42.00  a  week — an  increase  of  111  per  cent,  over  the 
1915  rate — and  that  of  laborers  to  $26.00  a  week — an  increase  of 
142  per  cent.  Yet  common  labor,  which  has  maintaind  since 
1840  its  ratio  with  skild  labor  and  even  increast  it  in  war  time, 
is  unorganized,  while  the  power  of  the  unions  has  been  exerted 
almost  wholly  in  the  skilld  trades.  The  larger  production  of 
modern  industry  with  is  machinery  and  improved  methods,  has 
under  economic  laws  brought  about  the  workers'  increast  wage 
whether  the  employer  wisht  it  or  not. 

Position  of  the  Worker — True  Function  of  Union 

But  we  must  not  follow  the  persuasive  Mr.  Darrow  farther 
from  our  main  theme,  and  in  coming  to  a  closer  view  of  the 
shop — open  or  closed — let  us  see  in  what  position  the  modern 
worker  finds  himself  therein.  In  the  old  days  of  individual 
production,  he  workt  side  by  side  with  his  employer.  The 
article  which  they  made  was  deliverd  to  and  used  by  some 
member  of  the  immediate  community.  He  saw  and  understood 
the  whole  process  of  production,  distribution  and  consumption, 
and  his  handi-wo'-k  was  a  source  of  satisfaction  and  pride  to  him. 
Under  the  present  factory  system,  he  now  finds  himself  a  mere 
cog  in  a  vast  complicated  machine.  A  hundred  men  or  more 
make  the  article  formerly  made  by  one.  The  old  human  contact 
is  gone  as  well  as  the  joy  and  pride  in  good  workanship.  The 
worker  docs  not  know  where  the  product  goes,  and  he  has  no 
conception  of  the  relation  between  the  price  paid  for  it  by  the 
final  consumer  and  his  own  wage  and  security  of  employment 
one  legacy  he  has  from  the  old  days,  and  that  is  the  fear  of 
unemployment. 

It  is  natural  and  proper  that  there  should  be  a  greater 
tendency  for  the  worker  to  organize  under  the  present  system 
than  formerly.  His  need  for  guidance  and  assistance  along  the 
right  path  has  increast,  and  there  are  useful  and  valuable  func- 
tions which  organizations  of  workmen  could  perform  in  the 
worker's  interest  and  for  the  good  of  Society.    It  is  all  import- 


14  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


ant  that  the  worker  should  regain  a  sense  of  the  dignity  and  im- 
portance of  work  and  that  he  should  understand  his  true  value 
in  the  present  industrial  system.  He  should  know  that  with  all 
its  complexity  modern  industry  yet  performs  a  social  service 
of  immeasurably  greater  value  than  that  of  the  old  individual 
system,  and  his  work  is  part  of  that  greater  social  service.  He 
should  learn  that  in  the  matter  of  production  his  interests  and 
those  of  his  employer  are  the  same,  no  matter  how  much  they 
may  quarrel  about  division,  and  he  should  appreciate  the  vital 
necessity  to  himsf^lf  as  well  as  to  Society  that  industrial  enter- 
prise should  be  raised  to  the  highest  point  of  efficiency  and 
productivity  possible.  Is  it  not  in  the  worker's  own  interest 
that  he  should  know  that  greater  efficiency  results  in  lower 
costs  and  prices,  greater  demand  for  the  product,  and  hence  for 
the  labor  to  make  it,  and  that  thru  this  there  comes  to  him  a 
greater  security  of  employment  and  a  betterment  of  wages? 
Is  it  not  the  true  and  proper  function  of  the  union  to  teach 
these  things  to  the  worker,  and  is  there  anything  inconsistent 
between  doing  this  and  upholding  his  rights  and  interests  with 
all  the  power  of  the  organization? 

War  Theory— The  Closed  Shop 

And  now  we  come  to  Mr.  Darrow's  major  premise,  in  the 
frank  and  honest  statement  of  which  he  has  performd  a  real 
service  in  clarifying  the  discussion.  His  position  is  that  be- 
tween employer  and  worker  there  is  a  fundamental  conflict  of 
interest  and  inevitable  warfare.  Mr.  Darrow  speaks  advisedly 
in  stating  the  union  philosophy,  and  the  serious  features  of  the 
labor  problem  today  grow  out  of  the  fact  that  unionism  has 
chosen  not  to  follow  the  path  of  constructive  service  open  be- 
fore it,  but  to  adopt  the  war  theory  as  a  basis  of  action.  Under 
this  theory  reliance  is  placed  entirely  upon  force,  and  the  power 
of  combination  and  of  class  action  is  developt  in  order  to  create 
and  use  this  force.  In  war,  the  morale  of  the  army  must  be 
preservd  by  stimulating  hatred  of  the  enemy.  The  Preamble  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  adopted 
in  1881,  recites: 

"A  struggle  is  going  on  in  all  the  nations  of  the  civilized 
world  between  the  oppressors  and  the  opprest  of  all  countries, 
a  struggle  between  the  capitalist  and  the  laborer,  which  grows 
in  intensity  from  year  to  year,  and  will  work  disastrous  results 
to  the  toiling  millions  if  they  are  not  combined  for  mutual  pro- 
tection and  benefit." 

There  is  no  suggestion  here,  or  in  the  entire  document,  of 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


15 


any  constructive  teaching  or  effort.  Its  note  of  class  interest 
is  the  keynote.  The  adoption  by  the  unions  of  the  war  theory 
and  of  the  fundamental  concept  of  force  naturally  colors  and 
controls  their  whole  philosophy  and  program.  Under  such  a 
doctrine  the  workers  must  be  brought  to  look  upon  the  em- 
ployer and  upon  Society  at  large  as  oppressors. 

The  closed  shop  in  its  present  form  is  the  concrete  ex- 
pression of  the  doctrine  of  force.  It  is  a  shop  closed  to  non- 
members  of  the  union.  It  represents  a  monopoly  of  employ- 
ment in  favor  of  the  union  in  the  particular  shop,  as  well  as  a 
vantage  ground  from  which  attacks  may  be  launcht  upon  other 
shops.  From  the  refusal  of  union  men  to  work  with  non-union 
men  in  individual  cases,  there  has  devclopt  the  idea  of  using  the 
closed  shop  as  a  means  of  securing  nation-wide  control  of  in- 
dustrj',  and  the  great  national  labor  organizations  have  long 
been  co-operating  to  this  end. 

Statements  of  Labor  Leaders 

Some  of  the  acknowiedgd  spokesman  for  organized  labor 
can  themselves  best  state  its  position.  Said  Air.  John  Mitchell, 
in  1903: 

"With  the  rapid  extension  of  trade  unions,  the  tendency  is 
towcird  growth  of  compulsory  membership  in  them,  and  the 
time  will  doubtless  come  when  this  inclusion  wili  become  as 
general  and  will  become  as  little  of  a  grievance  as  the  com- 
pulsory attendance  at  school.  The  inalienable  right  of  a  man 
to  work  will  then  be  on  a  par  with  the  inalienable  right  of  a 
child  to  play  truant,  and  the  compulsion  exercised  by  the  trade 
unions  will  be  likend  to  that  of  a  State  which  in  the  interests  of 
Society  forces  an  education  upon  the  child,  even  though  the 
child  and  its  parents  are  utterly  and  irreconcilably  opposed 
to  it." 

Mr.  J.  W.  Sullivan  of  the  Typographical  Union  is  one  of 
the  acknowledged  spokesmen  and  leaders  of  organized  labor. 
In  the  "Weekly  News  Letter"  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  October  25,  1919,  discussing  the  right  of  wage-earners 
to  organize  in  labor  unions  and  to  bargain  collectively,  he  said: 

"Once  this  foundation  right  is  in  good  faith  accepted  by 
employers,  they  take  upon  themselves  the  obligation  of  modify- 
ing all  alleged  abstract  rights  of  wage  workers  in  general  which 
are  inconsistent  with  it  as  a  basic  and  encompassing  principle. 
In  accepting  this  right,  they  concede  to  an  association  of  wage- 
vvorkers  the  right  of  its  self-preservation,  and  this  includes  the 
right,  when  necessary  to  that  end,  to  refuse  to  work  with  per- 
sons whose  acts  would  tend  to  destroy  the  association." 

In  other  words,  the  worker's  right  of  individual  contract, 


16 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


which  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  held  to  be 
part  of  the  personal  liberty  guaranteed  by  our  Constitution,  is. 
according  to  t!ie  union  view,  a  mere  "alleged"  abstract  right, 
and  the  employer  who  accepts  the  union  idea  of  collective  bar- 
gaining must  modify  or  deny  this  "alleged"  right  by  denying 
employment  to  the  non-union  worker.  The  union,  therefore,  not 
only  intends  to  use  its  own  powers  of  compulsion  to  force  the 
worker  to  abandon  his  individual  rights  and  accept  union  con- 
trol, but  intends  tliat  the  employer  shall  join  in  that  compulsion. 

How  far  it  will  go  in  the  kind  of  force  it  is  willing  to  em- 
ploy against  the  worker  is  shown  in  the  official  report  of  Mr. 
Luke  Grant  to  the  United  States  Commission  on  Industrial 
Relations,  made  in  1915.  Mr.  Grant  is  a  union  carpenter,  and 
both  before  and  after  his  report,  was  officially  connected  with 
labor  unions.    He  said: 

"In  recent  years  there  has  been  a  markt  change  in  the  na- 
ture of  the  violence  committed  in  the  building  trades  and  in 
the  methods  used.  The  ordinary  workman  who  in  former  days 
was  apt  to  use  his  fists  on  the  head  of  a  scab  for  the  sake  of 
the  cause,  seldom  does  so  now.  His  place  has  been  taken  by 
tlie  professional  thug  and  gunman.  Violence  has  become  com- 
mercialized and  made  more  brutal.  Assaults  on  non-union 
worl  men  are  seldom  made  openly  as  in  former  days  when  the 
strikers  did  the  assaulting.  The  professional  slugger  lies'  in 
wait  for  his  victim,  assaults  him  with  a  bludgeon  or  probably 
shoots  him  to  death.  *  *  *  if  the  destruction  of  property  seems 
more  expedient  than  the  slugging  of  non-union  men,  the  pro- 
fessional will  attend  to  that.  *  *  *  That  such  a  system  of  or- 
ganized thuggery  obtains  in  many  of  the  building  trades  unions 
is  beyond  dispute." 

Here  is  a  typical  extract  from  the  Bridgemen's  Magazine, 
the  official  organ  of  the  Iron  Worker's  Union.  It  is  from  the 
report  of  a  Business  Agent  of  the  Union  and  refers  to  some 
open-shop  work  at  Salt  Lake  City.    The  report  says: 

"They  built  a  12  foot  board  fence  around  the  job,  so  the 
bunch  could  not  see  them,  but  some  ungracious  fellows  hoisted 
a  few  rocks  over  the  fence.  They  must  have  been  good  shots, 
for  they  got  a  couple  of  them,  and  the  rest  of  the  snakes  got 
"cold  feet'  and  quit.  This  was  on  Friday,  June  11th,  and  on  the 
following  Monday  our  men  went  to  work.  *  *  *  The  boys  of 
No.  27  fought  nobly  for  their  rights,  which  were  principle  and 
unionism  on  our  side  and  the  open  shop  policy  on  the  Minneap- 
olis Steel  and  Machinery  Company's  part." 

Defiance  o£  Courts 

It  is  fairly  common  knowledge  that  unions  are  legally  irres- 
ponsible, generally  speaking,  and  that  the  writ  of  injunction  to 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


17 


prevent  threatend  injury  is  practically  the  only  remedy  against 
unlawful  union  activity.  In  pursuing  the  doctrine  of  force,  or- 
ganized labor  through  the  boycott,  the  sympathetic  strike,  the 
general  strike  and  other  militant  methods  has  frequently  invaded 
the  rights  of  third  parties  and  of  the  public.  The  use  of  the 
injunction  in  such  cases  has  resulted  in  a  bitter  attack  by  the 
leaders  of  organized  labor  upon  our  courts  and  judicial  system. 
Said  J\rr.  Mitchell: 

"It  a  judge  were  to  enjoin  me  from  doing  something  that  I 
had  a  legal,  a  constitutional  and  moral  right  to  do,  I  would 
violate  the  injunction,  I  shall,  as  one  American,  preserve  my 
liberty  and  the  liberties  of  my  people  even  against  the  usurpa- 
tion of  the  Federal  Judiciary." 

Said  Mr.  Gompers,  in  a  public  speech  at  the  time  of  the 
Buck  Stove  and  Range  Case: 

"I  desire  to  be  clearly  understood  that  when  any  court 
undertakes  without  warrant  of  law  by  the  injunction  process 
to  deprive  me  of  my  personal  rights  and  my  personal  liberty 
guaranteed  by  the  Constitution.  I  shall  have  no  hesitancy  in 
asserting  and  exercising  those  rights." 

Mr.  Gompers  then  asserts  greater  authority  than  that  of  the 
Courts  created  by  the  Constitution  in  the  interpretation  of  his 
rights  under  the  Constitution.  This  absurdity  would  be  ridicul- 
o.:s  if  it  were  not  the  cloak  of  Anarchy,  for  what  else  is 
.Anarchy  than  a  condition  where  each  man  is  final  judge  of  his 
own  acts?  And  Air.  Gompers  is  the  leader,  teacher  and  spokes- 
man for  4,000,000  workmen. 

After  the  injunction  was  issued  against  the  strike  of  the 
coal  miners  in  the  Fall  of  1919,  the  Executive  Committee  of 
the  Federation  of  Labor  issued  a  bitter  statement  in  criticism 
of  the  action  of  the  Government,  wdiich  concluded: 

"By  all  the  facts  in  the  case  the  miners'  strike  is  jusifiable. 
We  endorse  it.  We  pledge  to  the  miners  the  full  support  of  the 
American  Fcderat'on  of  Labor  and  appeal  to  the  workers  and 
the  citizenship  of  our  country  to  give  like  endorsement  to  the 
men  engaged  in  this  momentous  struggle." 

Organized  labor,  in  its  application  of  the  doctrine  of  force, 
had  thus  arrived  at  the  point  where  it  was  willing  to  use  its 
strength  and  resources  in  defiance  of  the  order  of  a  Federal 
Court  issued  upon  the  suit  of  the  Government  itself  acting  in 
the  interests  of  the  life  and  industry  of  the  nation.  You  will 
remember,  also,  that  in  the  passage  of  the  Adamson  Law,  rep- 
resentative government  was  suspended  and  that  piece  of  legis- 
lation was  rusht  thr®ugh  Congress  under  threat  of  a  national 
strike  by  the  Railway  Brotherhoods.    And  in  shame  be  it  said. 


18 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


it  was  made  law  within  the  time  limit  fixt  by  the  Brotherhood 
chiefs. 

In  discussing  this  law,  Mr.  Garretson,  President  of  the 
Order  of  Railroad  Conductors,  said  before  the  New  York 
Economic  Club,  December  11,  1916: 

^'Industrial  war  is  precisely  of  the  same  character  as  actual 
war.  No  battle  has  been  fought  in  establishing  the  right  of 
mankind,  either  real  or  fancid,  where  the  hospital  hasn't  been 
hlld  afterwards,  and  the  corpses  left  upon  the  field.  And  it  is 
just  so  in  industrial  war.  If  you  complain  that  four  hundred 
thousand  men  held  up  the  Government,  what  will  eight  millions 
of  them  do,  if  they  can,  to  hold  up  the  Government?" 

Class  Interest  vs.  Society 

The  leaders  of  organized  labor  recognize  that  the  final  issue 
lies  between  the  unions  as  representing  a  distinct  class  interest 
and  Societ}'-  at  large.  They  are  not  content  with  their  present 
measure  of  legal  immunity,  but  make  it  clear  that  it  is  their  pur- 
pose not  only  to  extend  closed-shop  control  through  methods 
of  coercion  and  force  to  industry  as  a  whole,  but  that  in  the 
exercise  of  the  power  thus  acquired  they  will  not  be  bound  by 
the  rules  and  laws  which  govern  other  classes  in  Society,  or 
even  by  the  authority  of  the  State  itself.  For  a  number  of  years 
past,  there  has  regularly  been  added  to  appropriation  measures 
of  the  Federal  Congress  a  rider  providing  that  none  of  the 
money  appropriated  to  the  Department  of  Justice  should  be 
used  in  the  prosecution  of  labor  unions. 

In  July  last,  Mr.  Frank  Morrison,  Secretary  of  the  Federa- 
tion, in  a  statement  in  the  New  York  Times  entitled  "Labor 
Cltimatum  to  the  Public,"  said: 

"The  workers  will  not  concede  that  the  community  has  any 
purpose  or  intention  to  render  justice  to  the  workers  should  it 
force  itself  into  participation  in  industrial  relations." 

Also,  that  the  workers  will  not  "yield  the  right  to  quit  work 
singly  or  collectively  when  in  their  judgment  the  conditions 
under  which  they  work  justify  such  action,"  and  "will  not  submit 
their  cause  to  adjudication  by  Utopian  schemes  based  on  sen- 
timentalism." 

He  also  said  (referring  to  the  army,  the  courts,  and  the 
'egislature)  that  "the  trade  union  should  be  permitted  to  func- 
tion without  interference  by  any  of  these  agencies,"  and  that 
"tiiere  can  be  no  question  in  modern  industry  which  cannot  be 
Jetermind  quickly  and  satisfactorily  through  the  trade  union 
philosophy." 

On  the  social  and  political  side,  therefore,  the  trade  union 
philosophy  under  the  doctrine  of  force  involves  denial  of  per- 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


19 


sonal  liberty,  development  of  class  consciousness,  stimulated 
hostility  to  the  employer  and  Society,  a  monopoly  of  employ- 
ment, and  the  acquisition  of  an  autocratic  control  of  industry 
above  the  law  and  the  State.  This  is  a  big  price  for  Society 
to  pay  for  the  closed  shop  as  a  permanent  institution.  Is  it 
worth  the  price? 

Economic  Aspects  of  Closed  Shop 

This  brings  us  to  a  consideration  of  the  economic  aspects 
of  the  closed  shop,  and  we  "come  at  the  outset  to  the  important 
factor  that  is  missing  in  Mr.  Darrow's  war  theory.  Under  that 
theory  no  account  is  taken  of  the  fact  that  before  any  division 
between  employer  and  employe,  or  any  quarrel  about  division, 
there  must  be  production,  and  that  the  greater  the  product  the 
more  there  will  be  to  divide  and  the  better  will  the  wants  of  all 
people  be  provided  for.  We  have  noted  that  under  the  war 
theory  the  worker  is  veiwd,  not  as  a  factor  in  production  but  as 
a  soldier  in  the  ranks  of  labor's  army.  In  order  to  maintain 
the  morale  and  discipline  of  the  army,  the  soldiers  must  all  be 
upon  the  same  level,  and  this  necessity  explains  the  unions  de- 
mand for  the  flat  wage  rate  and  for  labor  standardization  and 
the  opposition  to  piecework  or  bonus  systems  or  any  other 
method  of  work  which  encourages  individual  initiative  and  tends 
to  bring  about  inequalities  in  the  wage  rate.  The  resv.lt  of  all 
this  is  to  deprive  the  worker  of  all  incentive  and  to  make  the 
efficiency  of  the  least  competent  the  common  denominator  for 
the  efficiency  of  all.  The  spirit  of  hostility  and  of  armed  truce 
prevailing  in  the  closed  shop  are  also  serious  obstacles  to  the 
development  of  c3-opcration  or  of  cfTicient  productive  methods. 

Restriction  of  Output 

But  there  is  a  still  more  serious  phase  of  the  matter.  Out 
of  the  worker's  fear  of  unemployment  and  his  lack  of  under- 
standing of  modern  industry  has  emerged  the  idea  that  by  doing 
less  work  he  will  help  to  make  employment  for  more  workers. 
In  England,  where  union  control  is  almost  absolute,  this  idea  is 
practically  universal  among  the  workers,  and  in  this  country  it 
is  well  establisht  wherever  the  unions  have  long  had  a  closed- 
shop  control.  With  the  power  acquired  by  the  closed-shop,  the 
worker  can  put  this  vicious  misconception  into  actual  practice, 
and  the  individual  not  only  reduces  his  own  efforts,  but  often- 
times restrictions  on  output  are  enforced  by  unions  rules  and 
regulations. 


20 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


Union  leaders  do  not  correct,  but  rather  encourage  this 
idea.  In  1887  Mr.  Gompers  said  that  "So  long  as  there  is  one 
man  who  seeks  emplo3^ment,  the  hours  of  labor  are  too  long." 
In  1908  he  urged  the  adoption  of  an  eight-hour  law  upon  a 
Government  Commission  of  Nova  Scotia,  and  said.  "A  man 
cannot  do  as  much  v/ork  in  eight  hours  as  in  nine  or  ten.  The 
shorter  day  must  lessen  production  and  make  room  for  more 
men.  We  find  the  echo  of  this  in  the  1920  Convention  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  in  the  adoption  of  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  Shorter  Work  Day,  which  declard  in  favor 
of  a  six-hour  day  as  means  of  furnishing  employment  to  the 
members  of  different  organizations.  The  report  also  said:  "The 
words  'increast  production'  have  a  magic  sound  to  the  profiteer- 
ing manufacturer.  Your  Committee  believes  that  the  employer 
should  have  a  fair  return  from  labor  for  a  fair  day's  pay,  but  it 
resents  the  idea  that  there  must  be  a  continually  increast  re- 
turn from  labor  solely  for  the  benefit  of  such  employed." 

These  are  the  views  and  theories  learnd  by  the  union  man  in 
his  organization  and  from  his  chosen  leaders.  He  is  never  told 
that  he  owes  a  fair  day's  work  to  himself  even  more  than  to  his 
employer,  and  that  his  own  interests  are  vitally  affected  by 
efficiency  and  productivity.  Neither  is  he  told  that  by  de- 
creasing production  he  is  setting  in  motion  forces  which  tend 
toward  unemployment  and  decreast  wages.  It  is  hard  to  under- 
stand this  silence  on  matters  so  vital  to  the  worker's  interests, 
and  not  only  silence,  but  actual  misrepresentation.  The  only 
explanation  is  that  if  the  worker  were  permitted  to  see  clearly 
l;Ow  great  is  the  mutuality  of  interest  between  him  and  his  em- 
ploj-er,  he  would  not  as  willingly  play  his  part  in  the  war  pro- 
gram of  the  union.  Consider,  if  you  will,  what  would  be  the 
effect  upon  our  country's  welfare  and  progress  if  this  war  pro- 
gram should  be  successful  and  if  closed  shop  control  of  our  in- 
dustries should  become  generally  established.  Is  there  anything 
of  benefit  in  the  closed  shop  to  the  worker,  to  industry,  or.  to  the 
public,  to  justify  the  pa3mient  of  the  heav}^  price  it  entails. 

Conspiracy  vs.  Public 

But  the  closed  shop  union  and  certain  groups  of  employers 
have  discoverd  a  mutuality  of  interest  which  Mr.  Darrow  does 
not  mention.  Much  of  the  collective  bargaining  which  is  pointed 
to  as  an  example  of  harmony  and  peace  is  really  a  conspiracy 
against  the  public.    In  a  study  of  the  Closed  Shop,  publisht  in 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


21 


1911  by  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Dr.  Stockton  says: 

"Neither  employers  nor  unions  have  had  much  to  say  con- 
cerning the  advantage  of  'exclusive  agreements.'  *  *  *  Em- 
ployers who  are  parties  to  them  obtain  a  great  advantage  over 
competitors  in  localities  where  the  unions  are  strong.  But  while 
the  closed  shop  under  such  conditions  may  be  an  advantage  to 
those  employers  with  whom  a  union  agrees  to  deal  exclusively, 
the  public  interest  suffers  inasmuch  as  competition  is  effectivelv 
stifld." 

In  a  Government  Report  issued  by  the  United  States  Com- 
missioner of  Labor  in  1904  on  "Restriction  of  Output"  man\ 
such  agreements  are  described.  Here  are  one  or  two.  The  Re- 
port says: 

"The  Stonecutters'  Association  and  the  New  York  Stone 
Trade  Associat-'on  have  enterd  into  a  closed  agreement  by 
means,  of  which  the  members  of  the  employers'  association  are 
able  to  reimburse  themselves  for  whatever  disadvantages  they 
suffer  in  respect  to  the  various  restrictions  imposed  by  the 
union.  By  this  agreement,  the  members  of  the  union  refuse  to 
work  on  stone  that  is  cut,  planed  or  sawd  outside  New  York, 
and  the}'  refuse  to  work  for  non-members  of  the  employers' 
association." 

Here  is  another.  After  describing  a  similar  exclusive  agree- 
ment in  the  marble  industry  and  the  fact  that  the  amount  of 
work  performd  by  union  men  was  "one-half  of  what  should 
be  expected,"  the  Report  says: 

"Yet  by  excluding  marble  cut  outside  New  York  and  ex- 
cluding outside  contractors  from  entering  New  York,  the 
marble  employers  are  able  to  recoup  themselves  from  the 
building  industry  of  New  York." 

These  examples  were  typical  of  conditions  in  many  other 
trades. 

In  tlie  Lockwood  Investigation  such  combinations  between 
groups  of  employers  and  unions  were  disclosed  in  trade  after 
trade,  and  in  every  instance  the  power  of  the  contractors  to 
control  the  market  against  outside  competition  rested  upon  the 
closed-shop  control  of  the  union.  The  outside  contractor  who 
might  secure  a  contract  in  New  York  could  find  no  union  men 
to  perform  it.  If  he  employd  others,  he  was  met  with  a  sym- 
pathetic strike  . by  the  un'ons  in  the  Brindell  Building  Trades 
Council  and  forced  to  abandon  the  work  to  some  local  contrac- 
tor in  the  combine. 

Here,  tl-en,  is  the  final  fruit  and  flower  of  the  closed  shop. 
Here  is  harmony  and  peaceful  collective  bargaining  between 
the  parties,  with  their  feet  under  the  same  table.  The  union 
gets  a  monopoly  of  labor  and  all  its  demands  and  restrictions 


22  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 

acceded  to.  The  employer  gets  a  monopoly  of  the  market,  and 
ihe  public  pays  the  final  bill.  These  combinations  are  not 
peculiar  to  New  York,  They  exist  in  many  large  cities  where 
closed  shop  control  of  the  building  industry  has  become 
establisht.  They  exist,  also,  in  other  industries  where  condi- 
tions are  favorble  to  their  development.  The  point  is  that  they 
are  the  logical  outgrowth  of  the  spirit  and  purpose  of  the 
closed  shop,  and  if  the  employers  of  this  country  are  ever 
forced  to  accept  Ihe  closed  shop  through  the  acquiescence  or 
sympathy  of  the  public,  the  public  will  have  no  one  but  itself  to 
blame  if  it  finds  that  the  two  parties  have  stopt^  fighting  and 
jo'nd  forces  against  it.  Industrial  peace  and  harmony  thus  se- 
cured will  be  a  more  serious  matter  for  the  public  than  industrial 
warfare. 

Building  Industry 

The  closed  shop  is  strongest  in  the  building  industry,  and 
there  we  can  see  the  results  of  its  long-establisht  control.  Be- 
sides the  exclusive  agreement,  we  find  thirty  or  forty  trades 
who  tie  up  work  for  long  periods  with  internal  quarrels  over 
jurisdiction,  yet  unite  in  the  use  of  the  sympathetic  strike,  boy- 
cott and  other  union  methods  of  warfare  against  any  attempt 
to  question  their  power.  We  find  "industrial  democracy"  to 
consist  of  the  autocratic  control  of  a  building  trades  council, 
with  supreme  power  to  call  strikes  on  or  off  in  any  or  all  trades 
and  without  vote  of  the  rank  and  file  of  the  unions.  We  find 
all  manner  of  arljitrary  rules  and  restrictions  affecting  output 
and  increasing  labor  cost.  We  find  unions  refusing  to  admit 
new  members,  but  charging  non-union  men  for  "permits"  to 
work.  As  to  efficiency,  it  has  sunk  to  the  lowest  degree.  A 
recent  Report  of  the  Cleveland  Chamber  of  Commerce  says 
that  in  this  city  the  building  trades  workers  do  only  two-thirds 
of  the  work  done  before  the  war.  Before  the  war,  however,  the 
efficiency  of  the  building  tradesmen  was  far  below  what  a  fair 
normal  day's  work  should  be.  The  bricklayer  in  union  com- 
munities now  lays  350  to  400  bricks  a  day,  where  before  the  war 
he  laid  800,  and  a  normal  fair  day's  work  would  be  1500. 

Recently,  a  local  union  of  Steamfitters  in  Buffalo  broke 
away  from  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  announced 
its  adoption  of  the  open  shop  in  a  strong  resolution.  One  of 
the  chief  purposes  outlined  in  the  resolution  was  to  give  an  in- 
creast  production  on  the  part  of  the  workers  which  they  had 
been  prevented  from  doing,  and  in  a  public  statement  the  Busi- 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


23 


ness  Agent  of  the  Union  calld  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
average  steamfitter  could  erect  and  connect  from  four  to  six 
radiators  in  an  eight-hour  day,  but  that  in  the  past  they  had 
been  limited  to  erecting  and  connecting  not  more  than  one  or 
one  and  a  half  radiators  per  day, — in  other  words,  that  union 
steamfitters  in  the  past  had  been  compeld  to  limit  their  output 
not  to  exceed  one-third  or  one-fourth  of  their  natural  ability. 

When  you  consider  that  the  building  contractor  is  largely  a 
broker,  that  each  job  is  a  completed  transaction,  and  that  he 
does  not  have  to  send  his  product  to  outside  markets  to  com- 
pete with  the  products  of  other  localities,  it  becomes  clear  why 
it  has  been  easy  for  the  unions  to  secure  control  of  building. 
The  contractor  bids  on  conditions  as  he  finds  them,  adds  his 
profit,  and  the  owner  pays  the  bill.  Too  much,  therefore,  can- 
not be  expected  of  the  builder  in  the  way  of  reform,  unless  he 
is  assured  of  the  backing  of  the  owner  and  the  public,  which  in 
times  past  he  has  not  always  had.  It  is  for  the  community  to 
take  the  initiative  in  putting  conditions  in  the  building  industry 
upon  a  better  basis  and  insist  that  its  rights  be  recognized  and 
respected  both  by  the  builders  and  the  unions. 

Collective  Bargaining 

"But,"  says  Mr.  Darrow,  "we  must  have  collective  bargain- 
ing, and  labor  can't  possibly  bargain  without  the  closed  shop. 
Remove  the  union,  and  there  is  no  bargain  left."  This  is  a 
stock  argument.    Let  us  look  into  it  a  bit. 

In  the  first  place,  outside  of  exclusive  agreement,  how  can 
there  possibly  be  real  bargaining  in  a  closed  shop?  A  real  bar- 
gain presumes  that  the  parties  stand  upon  an  equal  footing.  In 
the  closed  shop  there  ca;i  be  "only  a  demand  and  a  surrender, 
for  the  possession  of  the  power  of  monopoly  by  the  union  gives 
it  an  overpowering  advantage.  In  practice,  there  are  few,  if 
any,  of  the  features  of  bargaining  found  in  the  closed  shop,  that 
is,  the  ordinary  negotiation,  discussion  and  adjustment  of  terms. 
The  union  delivers  its  ultimatum,  which,  if  rejected,  means  the 
application  of  coercion  to  compel  its  acceptance. 

Again,  in  the  closed  shop,  the  employer  does  not  deal  with 
his  own  employes.  He  deals  with  an  organization  largely  com- 
posed of  the  employes  of  others.  The  dealing  of  the  union  is 
carrid  on  in  furtherance  of  the  class-conscious  interests  of  this 
larger  group,  and  not  in  the  interests  of  the  employer's  es'tablish- 
ment.    The  employer,  then,  is  not  permitted  to  bargain  in  the 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


light  of  what  is  best  for  himself,  and  his  own  employes  in  the 
particular  business.  More  than  that,  under  the  philosophy  of 
the  closed  shop,  the  class-conscious  organization  with  which  he 
deals  is  a  hostile  one,  seeing  only  the  conflict  of  interest  be- 
tween the  part'es.  The  factor  of  cooperation  in  building  up 
the  business  for  the  mutual  interests  of  both  parties  is  left  out 
of  consideration.  This  violates  one  of  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples laid  down  by  the  President's  Second  Conference  in  its 
final  report.    The  report  says: 

"The  guiding  thought  of  the  Conference  has  been  that  the 
right  relationship  between  employer  and  employe  _can  be  best 
promoted  by  the  deliberate  organization  of  that  'relationship. 
That  organization  sliould  begin  witliin  the  plant  itself.*  *  * 
Such  organization  should  provide  for  the  joint  action  of  mana- 
gers and  cmploj^es  in  dealing  with  tlieir  common  interests.*  *  * 
The  general  principles  governing  such  organization  are  stated 
at  length  under  the  title  'Employe  Representation,'  *  *  *  Em- 
ploye representation  must  not  be  considered  solely  as  a  device 
for  settling  grievances.  It  can  find  success  only  if  it  also  em- 
bodies co-operation  in  the  problem  of  production." 
Here  is  a  principle  absolutely  lacking  in  closed-shop  bargaining. 

The  Conference  d-isagrees  also  with  Mr.  Darrow  when  he 
says  that  labor  cannot  bargain  without  the  closed  shop.  The 
report  says: 

"The  term  'collective  barga'ning'  as  herein  used  means 
negotiation  between  an  employer  or  an  association  of  employers 
on  the  one  side  and  the  employes  acting  as  a  group  on  the  other. 
There  are  two  types  of  collective  bargaining  as  thus  defined: 
one  in  v/hich  the  employes  act  as  a  group  through  the  trade  or 
labor  union,  the  other  in  which  they  act  as  a  group  through 
some  other  plan  of  employe  representation.  *  *  *  While  there 
are  some  emploj-ers  v/ho  still  insist  upon  the  policy  of  dealing 
with  their  employes  individually,  and  not  as  a  group,  we  think 
their  number  is  diminishing." 
The  report  also  says: 

"Employe  representation  is  operating  successfull}^  under 
union  agreements  in  organized  shops.  It  is  operating  in  non- 
union shops,  and  it  is  operating  in  shops  where  union  and  non- 
union men  work  side  by  side." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  undoubtedly  more  collective  bar- 
gaining today  in  the  open  shops  of  this  country  than  in  the 
closed  shops.  A  good  deal  of  this  is  with  regular  trade  unions 
who  have  not  grown  strong  enough  to  secure  the  closed  shop. 
That  the  unions  cannot  exist  without  the  closed  shop  is  belied 
by  the  fact  that  they  do  exist  and  have  always  existed,  for  only 
a  small  percentage  of  unions  have  secured  and  held  the  closed 
shop,  although  unionism  itself  has  been  steadily  increasing  in 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


25 


numbers  and  power.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is  that  the  attain- 
ment of  the  closed  shop  is  the  beginning  of  the  downward  course 
for  the  union.  With  the  power  thus  acquired  it  no  longer  is 
compeld  to  present  itself  as  a  desirable  and  responsible  contract- 
ing agent,  and  the  forces  of  exploitation  and  demoralization  be- 
gin their  destructive  work.  Giving  less  and  demanding  more, 
and  ever  reaching  out  for  more  and  more  power,  the  closed 
shop  union  finally  finds  itself  arrayd  against  Society  itself. 

The  Open  Shop 

It  remains  to  say  a  word  about  the  open  shop.  We  are  mis- 
led, I  believe,  in  thinking  of  it  as  a  definite  plan  or  system  or 
as  a  solution  of  the  labor  question.  It  is  none  of  these  things. 
It  is  merely  a  shop  that  is  not  closed — where  both  union  and 
non-union  men  are  employd  and  where  the  parties  under  the  free 
play  of  economic  forces  work  out  their  relations  with  each  other 
just  as  people  do  in  other  walks  in  life.  These  relations  take 
different  forms  in  different  shops.  There  is  individual  bar- 
gaining and  different  kinds  of  collective  bargaining.  There  is 
profit-sharing  and  various  plans  of  wage  paymejit.  There  is 
also  harmony  and  discord,  co-operation  and  misunderstanding, 
good  management  and  bad,  over-reaching  and  fair  play,  for  the 
parties  in  the  open  shop  are  the  same  humans  we  started  with 
and  the  millennium  is  not  yet  here.  But  this  may  be  said.  In 
the  open  shop,  management  is  not  cripld  in  developing  its  full 
efficiency;  the  welfare  of  the  particular  shop  is  the  basis  of  the 
relation  between  the  part'es,  the  opportunity  to  work  and  to 
develop  his  skill  and  earning  power  is  not  denied  the  worker; 
and  the  door  to  experiment  and  progress  toward  better  condi- 
tions and  relations  has  not  been  closed.  Ninety  per  cent  of  our 
industries  and  their  employes  operate  under  the  open  shop  to- 
day. Our  position  and  leadership  as  an  industrial  nation  has 
been  built  up  under  open-shop  operation.  Our  wages  and  stand- 
ard of  living  of  our  workers  are  the  highest  in  the  world  and 
th.e  highest  known  to  history.  Whatever  defects,  or  weak- 
nesses, or  injustices  are  incident  to  the  open  shop,  one  fact  must 
be  clear,  and  that  is  that  they  are  not  to  be  cured  or  a  better 
order  establisht  thru  the  substitution  of  the  closed  shop. 

As  to  the  employer,  he  has  not  that  power  of  exploitation 
which  is  commonly  attributed  to  him.  He,  too,  is  governd  by 
economic  law.  He  must  pay  for  efficiency  and  merit  what  it  is 
worth,  or  it  will  find  another  market.     The  very  influences 

s 


26 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


which  widen  the  sale  of  his  product  and  increase  his  profits 
also  widen  the  demand  for  labor  and  tend  to  force  him  to  pay  a 
better  wage  in  order  to  secure  that  product.  The  final  demand 
which  fixes  the  wages  of  the  worker  comes  from  the  consumer 
of  goods,  and  the  employer  can  no  more  prevent  the  operation 
of  this  law  than  he  can  stop  water  running  down-hill.  In  the 
long  run,  the  worker's  interest  in  dealing  with  the  employer  will 
be  more  surely  protected  by  the  laws  and  forces  that  control 
them  both  than  by  any  power  he  can  exert  through  an  organiza- 
tion committeed  to  the  destructive  fallacies  of  the  closed  shop. 

The  Employer 

And  may  I  say  one  last  word  about  the  employer?  He  or- 
ganizes the  forces  of  production.  He  is  the  natural  leader  of 
his  workmen,  and  is  able  by  instruction,  example  and  fair  deal- 
ing to  bring  to  bear  constantly  upon  them  influences  for  right- 
thinking  and  action  and  for  loyalty  to  the  common  enterprise. 
He  cannot  escape  responsibility  if  he  neglect  this  opportunity 
and  they  become  alienated  and  followers  of  false  leaders  and 
vicious  doctrines.  His  position  also  carries  with  it  larger  obliga- 
tions and  he  'should  consider  himself  not  as  engaged  in  business 
entirely  for  individual  profit,  but  as  a  trustee  for  the  beneficial 
use  of  the  forces  of  production  that  he  controls.  The  making 
of  profits  can  no  longer  be  considcrd  the  sole  test  of  business 
success.  Industry  has  not  performd  its  function  unless  it  brings 
betterment  of  conditions  and  increased  comforts  to  the  worker 
as  well  as  to  the  owner  and  unless  its  product  is  made  available 
to  the  general  public  at  prices  as  low  as  possible  thru  efficiency, 
co-operation  and  unrestricted  production.  This  broad  view  by 
the  employer  as  a  working  principle  in  his  own  business  and  in 
his  association  with  other  employers  is  not  altruism,  but  is 
being  found  to  be  a  sound,  constructive  business  philosophy. 

NATIONAL    MANUFACTURERS'    ASSOCIATION  AND 
THE  OPEN  SHOP 

The  National  Manufacturers'  Association  of  the  United 
States  of  America  is  one  of  the  oldest  of  such  organizations,  and 
is  perhaps  the  strongest  in  the  country.  It  maintains  a  large 
suite  of  offices  at  50  Church  Street,  New  York  City,  and  has 
recently  opend  a  special  department  on  the  open  shop,  which  is 
pressing  the  campaign  vigorously.  A  great  volume  of  literature 
advocating  the  open  shop  is  issued  by  this  department,  and  is 
sent  freely  to  all  who  ask  for  copies. 


r 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


27 


Their  pamphlet  Number  48  contains  several  pages  of  con- 
cisely stated  arguments.  The  following  reprint  preserves  the 
page  headings  and  certain  explanatory  notes  used  in  the  pam- 
phlet. The  title  used  for  the  entire  pamphlet  is  "Why  the  Open 
Shop".  The  back  cover  gives  a  "Declaration  of  Labor  Prin- 
ciples" of  the  Association,  which  is  used  in  other  of  their  publi- 
cations, and  is  omitted  here  since  it  does  not  bear  exclusvely  on 
our  question.  A  few  "fillers"  used  in  the  pamphlet  are  also 
omitted  from  our  print. 

The  Definitions 

The  Open  Shop  exists  wherever  and  -^vhenever  the  follow- 
ing labor  principle  enunciated  by  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike 
Commission,  appointed  by  President  Roosevelt,  in  1902,  is 
practist: 

No  person  shall  be  refused  employment,  or  in  any  way  dis- 
criminated against  on  account  of  membership  or  non-member- 
ship in  any  labor  organization,  and  there  shall  be  no  discrimina- 
tion against,  or  interference  with,  any  employe  who  is  not  a 
member  of  any  labor  organization  by  members  of  such  organiza- 
tion. 

The  Bridgcmen's  Alagazine,  official  organ  of  the  Iron  Work- 
ers' Union,  defines  the  open  shop  as  follows  (issue  of  December, 
1905): 

If  •■^e  employer  will  not  \'ield  without  coercion,  and  the 
union  .s  unable  to  coerce  him,  then  non-unionists  as  w'ell  as 
unionists  may  obtain  employment  and  the  establishment  is  con- 
sequently known  as  an  open  shop. 

The  Bridgemen's  Magazine  defines  the  closed  shop: 

Closed  shop,  then,  is  the  term  for  a  shop,  factory,  store  or 
other  industrial  place  where  workmen  cannot  obtain  employment 
without  being  members  in  good  standing  of  the  labor  union  of 
their  trade.  This  is  demanded  by  the  unions  *  *  *  They  insist 
that  the  shop  shall  be  closed  against  all  employes  who,  not  al- 
ready belonging  to  the  union  of  their  trade,  refuse  to  join  it. 

The  Printing  Pressmen,  Constitution  and  By-Laws,  1909. 
declare : 

Tl-.e  words  "union  pressroom"  as  herein  employd  shall  be 
construed  to  refer  only  to  such  pressrooms  as  are  operated 
wholly  by  union  employes,  in  which  union  rules  prevail,  and  in 
which  the  union  has  been  formally  recognized  by  the  employer. 
These  definitions  bring  out  the  following  points  clearly: 
1.  Under  the  closed  shop  only  members  in  good  standing 
of  the  unions  may  obtain  employment.  Open  shop  employers 
refuse  to  discriminate  on  account  of  "membership  or  non-mem- 
bership in  any  labor  organization"  and  "non-unionists  as  well  as 
unionists  may  obtain  employment." 


28 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


2.  The  closed  shop  "shall  be  closed"  against  men  who  "re- 
fuse to  join"  the  union.  The  open  shop  denies  the  right  of  union 
members  to  discriminate  against  "any  employe  who  is  not  a 
member  of  a  labor  organization." 

3.  The  closed  shop  makes  the  employer  agree  to  employ 
only  union  members,  and  tells  the  independent  worker  that  if 
he  "refuses  to  join"  the  union  he  shall  not  have  work. 

4.  In  the  closed  shop  "union  rules  prevail."  The  employer, 
in  other  words,  must  yield  to  the  "union  rules"  where  they  affect 
the  conduct  of  his  establishment. 

WHY  THE  EMPLOYER  OPPOSES  THE  CLOSED  SHOP 

1.  The  employer  is  asked  to  make  contracts  and  agree- 
ments with  organizations  which  are  not  legally  responsible  for 
their  fulfilment. 

2.  The  rules  of  closed-shop  unions  are  made  by  men  95 
per  cent  of  whom  are  not  employd  in  any  one  establishment 
and  have  no  knowledge  of  its  problems.  National,  as  well  as 
local  rules  govern  the  establishments.  The  working  conditions 
in  every  plant  are  established  by  outside  control. 

3.  These  rules  specifically  limit  the  number  of  apprentices 
that  may  be  employed,  thus  reducing  the  number  of  skilled 
workers  available  for  industry.  Employers  would  also  benefit 
by  the  greater  buying  power  of  a  large  number  of  skild  workers. 

4.  Closed  shop  rules  and  customs  restrict  the  amcMnt  of 
work  which  shall  be  performd.  Employers  are  unable  t^^  "p.y 
the   more   efficient  workers   according   to   their  ability. 

5.  Even  where  the  workers  in  a  closed  shop  plant  are 
satisfied  with  their  own  conditions,  the  plant  may  be  closed 
down  because  of  sympathetic  strikes  and  jurisdictional  disputes. 

6.  Closed  shop  leaders  and  small  groups  of  wrong-minded 
employers  can  make  agreements  to  deprive  other  employers  of 
business  by  shutting  off  th.eir  labor,  suppl3^  The  conditions 
reveald  in  New  York  exist  in  many  industries  and  localities. 

Honest  emploj^ers  recognize  that  the  closed  shop  leads  to 
"exclusive  agreements,"  which  are  opposed  because  they  are 
dishonest,  conta''jf  to  public  policy,  and  bring  fair-minded  em- 
ployers into  di.iepute. 

Why  Employers  Favor  The  Open  Shop 

(Froiii  an  ar'icle  by  Stephen  C.  Mason.  President  of  the 
National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  written,  especially  for 
the  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  January  23,  1921.) 

1.  Rules  governing  plant  operation  are  not  made  by  men 
who  have  neither  moral  nor  financial  interest  or  responsibility 

\ 


\ 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


2S 


in  the  success  of  the  individual  establishment. 

2.  It  does  not,  by  arbitrarily  limiting  the  number  of  appren- 
tices, reduce  the  number  of  skild  workers  available  for  in- 
dustry. 

3.  Closed  shop  rules,  which  limit  the  amount  of  work  a 
man  shall  do  in  a  day,  will  not  apply. 

4.  It  will  be  possible  to  pay  men  according  to  their  ability, 
which  will  give  greater  production  per  dollar  of  wages  paid  than 
is  possible  under  the  closed  shop.  Lower  production  costs  will 
bring  a  wider  market  and  larger  sales.  This  will  benefit  the 
worker  because  greater  continuity  of  employment  will  be  pos- 
sible. 

5.  Plants  will  seldom,  if  ever,  be  closed  down  because  of 
sympathetic  and  jurisdictional  disputes  and  strikes. 

6.  Agreements  by  groups  of  employers  with  closed  shop 
leaders  to  deprive  other  employers  of  business,  such  as  the 
Lockwood  investigation  in  New  York  has  reveald,  are  not 
possible. 

How  the  Open  Shop  Benefits  the  Worker 

1.  It  makes  it  possible  for  the  worker  to  get  paid  accord- 
ing to  what  he  produces,  instead  of  being  held  to  a  "dead  level" 
of  efficiency.  The  incentive  and  opportunity  for  increast  effi- 
ciency and  earning  power  are  both  present. 

2.  The  union  man  as  well  as  the  independent  worker  will 
be  able  to  obtain  work  without  the  necessity  of  agreeing  to 
arbitrary  rules  and  conditions. 

3.  Under  the  closed  shop,  workers  who  have  no  trouble 
with  their  own  employer  oftentimes  are  idle  for  weeks  at  a 
time  because  of  sympathetic  strikes  or  jurisdictional  disputes. 
These  seldom  occur  under  the  open  shop. 

4.  As  output  per  dollar  increases  and  manufacturing  costs 
are  lowerd  the  manufacturer  can  lower  his  prices  and  enlarge 
his  market.  He  will  be  able  to  work  his  plant  more  steadily, 
which  means  an  increast  demand  for  labor. 

5.  Continuity  of  employment  will  increase  and  wages  be 
^tead  er  as  (a)  sympathetic  and  jurisdictional  troubles  are 
lessend,  and  (b)  the  employer's  market  is  increast. 

6.  Most  of  the  unions  have  rules  which  limit  the  number 
of  apprentices  an  employer  may  hire.  This  makes  it  impossible 
for  large  number  of  workers  to  learn  skild  trades.  The  union 
rules  force  them  to  remain  as  unskild  workers  with  lower  pay 
and  more  chances  of  unemployment.    The  open  shop  has  no 


30  THE  UNVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


such  rules,  makes  it  possible  for  more  competent  and  willing 
workers  to  become  skild,  increases  the  average  wage  paid,  and 
the  total  wage  paid  to  the  working  class,  as  distinct  from  the 
rate  of  wage  that  may  be  temporarily  secured  by  a  certain 
group.  Increase  in  total  productivity  means  an  increase  in  total 
wages.  General  living  standards  are  higher  under  the  open 
shop. 

Why  the  Public  Should  Support  the  Open  Shop 

(From  an  article  by  Stephen  C.  Mason,  President  of  the 
Xational  Association  of  Manufacturers,  written  especially  for 
the  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  January  23,  1921.) 

The  general  public  should,  and  eventually,  of  course,  will, 
support  the  open  shop  for  these  reasons: 

1.  Under  the  open  shop  industry,  which  provides  the  pub- 
lic with  what  it  needs,  is  able  to  operate  more  efficiently.  There 
is  less  waste  and  u.nutilized  effort. 

2.  The  decrease  in  sympathetic  strikes  and  jurisdictional 
disputes  means  that  less  hardship  and  deprivation  will  come  to 
the  innocent  bystanders. 

3.  Decreases  in  prices  will  be  made  possible  by  (a),  lower 
production  costs,  because  of  greater  efficiency,  (b)  more  con- 
tinuous operation  thru  freedom  from  sympathetic  and  juris- 
dictional controversy.  The  costs  of  industry  are  in  the  long  run 
paid  by  the  consumer;  the  inefficiency  of  the  closed  shop  in- 
creases the  costs  or  keeps  them  higher  than  they  should  be. 

4.  Agreements  by  closed  shop  leaders,  enabling  small 
groups  of  employers  to  combine  and  raise  prices  will  be  im- 
possible under  the  open  shop,  which  increases  competition. 

5.  Licreast  wages,  by  reason  of  the  more  efficient  worker 
getting  paid  according  to  what  he  produces,  and  because  of  a 
larger  number  of  skilled  workers,  mean  greater  buying  power 
and  prosperity  for  the  merchants  and  other  tradesmen.  Total 
wages  and  buying  powers  are  increast  under  the  open  shop. 

6.  The  open  shop  means  the  preservation  of  the  principle 
of  the  Revolutionary  War,  a  revolt  against  outside  authority  in 
American  affairs.  The  body  politic  has  establisht  and  maintaind 
fundamental  principles  upon  which  the  happiness  and  pros- 
perity of  this  nation  are  based.  Equality  of  opportunity,  free- 
dom of  contract  and  individual  liberty  are  represented  and  pro- 
tected in  the  open  shop. 

Community  Benefits  of  the  Open  Shop 

1.    The  merchants,  tradesmen,  and  professional  men  bene- 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


31 


fit  by  the  increast  total  wages  under  the  open  shop  caused  by 
(a),  greater  continuity  of  operations  with  less  unemployment 
and,  (b),  more  skild  workers. 

2.  Lower  prices  are  made  possible  by  decreast  manufac- 
turing costs. 

3.  Competition  is  increast,  which  also  tends  to  decrease 
prices.  Agreements  by  closed  shop  leaders  to  supply  workers 
only  to  members  of  certain  employers  associations,  thus  pre- 
venting other  employers  from  getting  business,  are  impossible. 
Such  agreements  make  it  possible  for  the  members  of  these 
employers  association  to  drive  other  employers  from  the  field 
and  increase  their  prices. 

4.  Facts  and  figures  prove  that  open  shop  communities 
prosper  and  grow.  San  Francisco  is  a  "union"  town,  and  De- 
troit is  an  "open  shop"  town.  In  ten  years  Detroit's  wage 
earners  increased  from  39,373  to  81,011;  in  ten  years  San  Fran- 
cisco's wage  earners  decreased  from  32,555  to  28,244. 

Taking  the  twenty  principal  cities  of  the  United  States, 
open  shop  Indianapolis  has  the  lowest  "gross  debt"  and  the 
second  lowest  tax  rate  per  $1,000.  Open  shop  Los  Angeles  has 
the  lowest  tax  rate  per  $1,000  assest  valuation  of  property 
Closed  shop  San  Francisco  was  tenth. 

The  three  towns  with  the  largest  population  percentage  in- 
crease from  1910  to  1920 — Akron,  Detroit,  and  Los  Angeles- 
are  all  strong  "open  shop"  towns. 

5.  Communities  prosper  as  industries  come.  The  Em- 
ployers Association  of  Indianapolis  reports  that  in  1920  thirty- 
one  new  industries,  largely  due  to  open  shop  conditions,  located 
there.  Many  industries  have  left  San  Francisco  because  of  the 
restrictive  union  domination.  The  Buffalo  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce reports  that  open  shop  conditions  are  now  bringing  many 
new  industries,  which  will  employ  over  20,000  workers. 

6.  The  lessening  of  friction  between  employers  and  walk- 
ing delegates,  and  the  decrease  of  sympathetic  strikes  and  juris- 
dictional disputes,  mean  less  injury  and  suffering  for  the  in- 
nocent bystanders,  the  public. 

THE  STEEL  CORPORATION  AND  THE  OPEN  SHOP 

The  two  outstanding  individuals  representing  special  interests 
)nvolvd  in  the  controversy  over  the  closed  or  open  shop,  are  Elbert 
I  I.  Gary,  the  executive  head  of  the  Steel  Corporation,  and  Samu?l 
(Rompers,  the  executive  head  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 


32 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


They  take  directly  opposing  views  upon  this,  as  upon  many  other 
in^'portant  industrial  questions  of  tlie  day. 

In  this  bu'letin  I\Ir.  (lompers  is  quoted  at  considerable  length. 
He  has  exprest  himself  frequcntiy,  \igcrousiy  and  in  volume  upon 
our  specific  question.  The  same  is  not  true  of  Mr.  Gary,  tho 
his  personal  and  official  convictions  have  been  made  clear  in  public 
again  and  again.  He  has  not  gone  so  far  and  at  such  length  into 
the  merits  of  the  question  as  a  matter  of  industrial  statesmanshiu. 
For  this  reason  he  cannot  l^e  quoted  at  the  length  and  to  the  same 
effect  as  can  Mr.  Gompcrs. 

Each  debater,  whether  of  the  affirmative  or  the  negative  is 
recom.m.ended  to  secure  a  copy  of  the  report  of  Mr.  Gary's  testi- 
mony before  the  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor  of  the  United 
States  Senate,  investigating  the  Steel  Strike,  Octoi^er,  1919.  This 
has  been  printed  in  a  separate  volume,  together  with  excerpts  from 
numerous  addresses  made  by  Mr.  Gary  on  industrial  problems,  sta- 
tistics and  committee  reports.  The  document  wi'l  be  of  much  direct 
and  indirect  service  to  debaters  on  both  sides  of  the  question.  Prob- 
ably the  SteeL  Corporation  will  supply  a  reasonable  number  of 
copies  to  the  debating  teams  of  Oklahoma.  We  suggest  that  one 
copy  for  both  of  the  opposing  teams  in  a  given  town  will  suffice. 
-Vgrce  between  you  who  shall  send  for  it  to  be  used  by  all  of  you 
interested  in  the  same  town  and  state  the  fact  in  your  letter.  It 
is  a  bulky  volume,  and  there  must  be  considerable  expense  involved 
in  printing  and  mailing. 

As  stated  above,  Mr.  Gary's  views  on  the  Open  Shop  cannot 
!:e  i)resented  in  as  orderly  a  form  as  can  those  of  Mr.  Gompers,  but 
scattered  through  his  testimony  before  the  Senate  Committee  there 
are  references  to  the  open  shop  and  expressions  of  his  views.  Fol- 
lowing are  some  of  these  passages: 

As  I  said  in  my  letter  to  the  President,  this  question  of  union- 
ism, gentlemen,  all  comes  down  to  the  one  question  of  an  open 
shop  or  a  closed  shop.  If  you  make  contracts  with  labor  unions, 
if  you  recogn"ze  the  leaders  of  labor  unions,  it  forces  everyone  to 
go  into  the  unions  and  that  means  a  closed  -shop,  and  one  who  is 
not  a  memiber  of  a  labor  union  cannot  get  employment  there.  We 
stand  for  the  open  shop.  We  insist  that  the  men  can  come  into  our 
shop  and  work  for  us  and  stay  there  whether  they  belong  to  a 
union  or  not,  and  we  never  ask  the  question. 

Senator  Borah:  I  saw  a  statement  publisht  in  a  paper  in 
which  you  stated  that  you  could  not  arbitrate  this  matter  because 
of  the  moral  question  involvd.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  underly- 
ing all  this  controversy  must  be  some  fundamental  principle  whicli 
is  fastend  in  your  mind  as  a  guiding  proposition  for  your  conduct 
and  for  your  actions  in  regard  to  this  matter;  and  aside  from  the 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


33 


question  of  wages  and  hours  of  labor  and  the  manner  in  which 
the  men  have  been  taken  care  of,  I  think  the  whole  committee 
would  like  to  know  what  you  deem  to  be  the  fundamental  issue 
which  you  cannot  arbitrate  or  consider  in  connection  with  the  repre- 
sentatives of  these  men.  Will  you  state  what  you  conceive  to 
be  the  fundamental  issue  or  the  moral  question  which  you  said 
was  involvd  which  you  could  not  arbitrate? 

Mr.  Gary:  Well,  Senatoi^,  the  fundamental  issue,  as  I  con- 
ceive it,  is  the  question  of  an  open  shop  or  a  closed  shop,  the 
question  of  allowing  a  man  to  work  where  he  p'eases,  whether  he 
belongs  to  a  union  or  not,  and  the  right  of  an  employer  to  em- 
ploy a  man  in  his  shop  whether  the  man  is  a  union  man  or  not.  I 
believe  that  it  is  well  known  all  over  the  world  and  is  the  opin- 
ion of  a  large  majority  of  the  people  of  the  world  that  the  open 
shop  is  essential  to  progress  and  prosperity,  and  that  the  closed 
shop  means  less  production,  less  work,  higher  costs.     *    *  * 

I  think  it  is  immoral  for  a  small  minority  of  men,  organized, 
if  you  please,  to  compel  by  force  a  large  majority  to  yield  to 
their  desires  and  to  submit  to  their  control.  Because  if  the  indus- 
tries of  this  country  or  any  other  were  controld  by  union  labor, 
as  it  would  be  if  these  gentlemen  are  successful — and  I  am  not  deal- 
ing in  personalities — it  would  mean  decay,  less  production,  higher 
cost;  and  this  country  could  not  succeed  in  its  contest  with  other 
countries  for  the  world's  business,  it  would  be  in  a  condition  that 
1  fear  England  is  in  today,  but  which  I  hope  it  w  11  come  out  of. 

Now,  I  think  when  a  few  men,  comparatively  speaking,  seek 
to  impose  their  will  to  forcibly  secure  control  of  a  business  against 
the  wishes  of  a  large  majority,  that  is  immoral.  That  is  my  opin- 
ion of  that.  And  here  were  outsiders,  bear  in  mind,  rank  outsiders, 
who  stated  pub'icly  away  back  at  the  St.  Paul  meeting,  and  it  was 
testified  to  here  before  this  committee,  that  they  were  starting  out 
to  organize  the  steel  industry,  which  they  had  fadd  to  accomplish  in 
the  past;  that  was  their  view;  not  for  the  purpose  of  securing  bet- 
ter pay,  better  conditions ;  none  of  the  twelve  points  which  have 
been  made  since  this  strike  was  calld,  I  think,  was  mentiond.  We 
have  never  heard  anything  about  those  twelve  points  ;  none  of  our 
men  have  made  any  complaint;  but  these  men  were  forcing  them- 
selves into  the  steel  business,  to  unionize  it  all  and  to  get  control 
of  it.  And  what  would  happen  if  they  got  control  of  it?  Is  there 
any  man  here  who  has  had  any  experience  with  organized  labor 
who  does  not  know? 

Senator  Borah:  *  *  *  ij^^j-  underlying  the  proposition 
is  the  other  question,  as  to  whether  or  not  great  industries  are  will- 
ing to  recognize  the  representatives  of  unionized  labor,  and  to 
deal  with  them. 

Mr.  Gary:  Senator,  I  should  like  to  answer  that  question 
in  just  this  way.  We  are  not  willing  to  do  anything  which  we  be- 
lieve, after  consideration,  amounts  to  the  establishment  of  a  closed 
shop  as  against  an  open  shop,  or  that  tends  to  do  that.  We  stand 
firmly  on  the  proposition,  that  industry  must  be  allowd  to  proceed 
untrammeled  by  the  dictates  of  labor  unions  or  anyone  else  except 
the  employer  and  the  employes  and  the  Government.    That  is  where 


34 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


we  stand. 

Senator  Borah:  That  is  really  the  issue,  as  you  conceive  it 

10  be.  in  this  controversy. 
Mr.  Gary:    It  is. 

The  Chairman:  You  concede  the  public  have  some  interest 
m  that,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Gary:  The  highest,  Senator.  They  are  to  be  first  con- 
siderd.  All  private  interests  must  yield  to  the  public  necessity  and 
the  public  good. 

Senator  McKellar:  When  you  spoke  of  the  Government 
you  meant  the  people? 

Mr.  Gary:    I  meant  the  people,  of  course. 

Senator  Borah:  Without  assuming  to  argue  the  question 
one  way  or  the  other,  if  labor  cannot  deal  with  the  great  indus- 
tries of  the  country  collectively,  do  you  think  that  it  would  be 
practical,  or  practicable  or  possible  for  labor  to  maintain  itself  and 
its  rights,  its  wages,  and  so  forth,  as  against  combined  capitalism? 
Can  labor  deal  with  capital  without  dealing  with  it  in  the  same 
way,  combined  and  collectively? 

Mr.  Gary:  I  think  labor  can  deal  collectively,  and  it  ought 
to  be  encouraged  to  deal  col  cctively,  and  it  ought  not  to  Ije  prohi- 
bited at  any  time  from  dealing  collectively ;  but  dealing  collectively 
in  the  form  of  commihees,  or  however  they  themselves  may  decide, 
■is  one  tilin  g  and  dra":iT>-  collectively  as  ins:r.ted  upon  by  the  labor 
leaders,  wh'ch  means  that  the  union  labor  leaders  shall  decide  all 
these  cjuestions,  and  shall  represent  the  men,  whether  they  are 
askt  to  or  not,  and  will  establish  a  basis  for  the  closed  shop  which 
would  shut  out  the  individual  voices  of  these  men  practically,  is 
([uite  a  different  thing. 

*       *  * 

Senator  Phipps:  Judge  Gary,  what  influence  do  you  think 
the  open  shop  method  of  operation  as  against  the  closed  shop  Avould 
have  on  production  and  the  pay  that  the  workmen  wouM  receive? 

Mr,  Gary:  The  closed  shop  of  course  means  less  produc- 
tion; it  means  less  hours;  it  means  higher  wages.  You  under- 
stand I  am  in  favor  of  higher  wages,  liberal  wages,  but  there  is 
a  point  wliere  you  must  stop  as  a  matter  of  course,  because  if  the 
workman  increases  his  wages  then  his  employer  increases  the  sell- 
ing price  of  his  product.  He  is  working  against  himself  all  the 
time;  they  are  pulling  against  one  another.  My  idea  is  to  establish 
a  fa^r  basi-. 

The  Chairman:    I  notice  in  the  "principles  and  policies  to 
';o\ern  relations  between  workers  and  employers  in  war  industries 
for  the  duration  of  the  war,"  this  proposition  is  laid  dow^i : 
Right  to  organize.    The  right  of  workers  to  organize  in  trade 
unions  and  to  bargain  collectively  through  chosen  representa- 
tives is  recognized  and  affirmd.    This  right  shall  not  be  denied, 
abridgd,  or  interfered  with  by  the  employers  in  any  manner 
whatsoever. 

Did  you  subscribe  to  any  such  doctrine  as  that  for  war  times? 
Mr.  Gary:    It  depends  upon  what  you  mean  by  collective 
bargaining.    If  you  mean  the  collective  bargaining  that  the  labor 


THE  OPEN  SHOP  35 

unions  are  now  claiming  to  insist  upon,  we  did  not.  If  you  mean 
the  right  of  men  through  committees  to  present  their  questions,  or 
an}'  question,  yes,  in  principle.  We  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
War  Labor  Board. 

Senator  Walsh:  Judge  Gary,  let  me  see  if  I  understand  your 
position.    Vou  recognize  the  right  of  working  men  to  organize? 

Mr.  Gary:  Yes. 

Senator  Walsh:  You  have  no  objection  to  unions  in  your 
plants.    Is  that  right? 

Mr.  Gary:    I  do  not  know  what  you  mean  by  that. 

Senator  Walsh:  You  recognize  the  right  of  the  men  to 
form  unions 

Mr.  Gary:  Yes, 

Senator  Walsh:    But  you  refuse  to  confer  with  the  rep- « 
resentatives  of  the  unions? 
Mr.  Gary:  Yes. 

Senator  Walsh:  That  is  right.  Now,  what  good  is  there 
in  men  having  the  right  to  organize  if  their  employer  refuses  to 
recognize  their  officials  and  confer  with  them? 

Mr.  Gary:    What  good  is  it  to  them? 

Senator  Walsh:  Yes,  of  what  value  is  the  right  of  working 
men  to  organize  if  their  representatives  can  not  talk  to  their 
employer? 

Mr,  Gary:  Could  that  not  be  answerd  by  saying  if  10  per- 
cent of  the  men  join  unions  and  secure  a  contract  with  the  employer, 
with  the  labor  representatives  of  that  10  percent,  that  they  then 
should  have  the  right  by  so  doing,  the  minority,  to  drive  or  to 
force  or  to  influence  the  90  percent  of  the  employes  to  join  the 
unions?   Because  that  is  the  inevital^le  result.   Would  that  be  right? 

Senator  Walsh:  But  is  not  3''0ur  position  secure  when  rep- 
resentatives of  organized  labor  come  to  you  and  you  say  they  only 
represent  10  percent,  and  you  say  to  them,  "I  can  not  talk  with 
you,  I  can  not  discuss  this  matter,  you  only  represent  10  percent 
of  my  employes,  and  I  want  the  other  90  percent  represented  or 
I  have  the  right  to  assume  they  are  not  discontented."  You  could 
take  that  position,  could  you  not? 

Mr.  Gary:    In  conversation,  do  you  mean? 

Senator  Walsh:  Is  it  not  a  question  of  fact  for  you  to 
determine  how  many  the  representatives  of  organized  labor  repre- 
sent? 

Mr.  Gary:    Yes,  quite  right. 

Senator  Walsh:  Not  to  assume  they  are  a  minority  simply 
because  you  get  letters  from  their  representatives,  and  to  take  the 
position  that  they  are  only  a  minority.  Is  that  not  a  fact  which  you 
could  have  dctermind  aittr  conferring  with  them?  Men  do  not  make 
public  their  membership  in  unions. 

Mr.  Gary:-  You  wil4  remember  I  said  in  my  letter,  they  had 
said  to  me,  "We  represent  your  men,"  and  I  said  that  'T  do  not 
think  you  represent  them."  Was  that  not  equivalent  to  disputing 
the  fact.-' 

Senator  Walsh:  But  the  union  men  in  the  shop,  where,  they 
know  their  employer  will  not  recognize  their  unions,  do  you  think 


36  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


those  men  will  make  public  their  membership?  Do  you  think  your 
superintendents  and  foremen  would  know  every  man  in  your  plant 
that  was  a  member  of  a  union  when  they  knew  that  you  were  not 
in  sympathy  with  unions? 

Mr.  Gary:  I  do  not  think  that,  but  I  do  think  that  with 
ordinary  years  and  intelligence,  if  employes  came  to  him  in  large 
numbers  so  he  knew  they  were  a  majority,  saying  they  did  not 
belong  to  unions  and  they  did  not  care  to  have  a  small  minority 
control  a  shop,  I  think  he  would  get  it  that  way. 

Senator  Jones:  But  your  position  is  the  same  even  if  90  per 
cent  of  your  men  were  unionized  you  would  refuse  to  meet  and 
to  confer  with  their  representatives,  as  I  understand  you?  Is 
that  true? 

Mr.  Gary:    I  have  not  said  so;  I  do  not  say  that. 

Senator  Jones:  Have  you  not  said  you  refused  to  recog- 
nize the  officers  of  unions,  that  you  would  not  even  talk  with  iMr. 
Gom.pers?    Have  you  not  said  that  here? 

Mr.  G^ry:    The  trouble  is  you  do  not  

Senator  Jones  (interrupting):  The  reason  you  are  not  con- 
ferring v/ith  them  is  because  you  think  they  represent  only  a  mi- 
nority, or  is  it  because  you  are  hostile  to  the  representatives  of 
organ  zed  labor  conferring  with  you?  It  is  one  or  the  other. 

Mr.  Gary:  Senator,  I  refuse  to  change  my  thought  or  my 
expression,  in  substance,  and  that  is  that  we  refuse  to  do  any- 
thing that  will  result  in  the  closed  shop  as  against  the  open  shop, 
and  that  is  where  I  stand. 

:Jc  5j:  ^jt 

*  *  *  I  put  ourselves  squarely  upon  one  issue,  and  that  is 
the  open  or  closed  shop.  Now,  as  to  what  will  bring  about  a 
closed  shop,  as  opposed  to  the  open  shop,  Vv^e  must  decide  from 
tiir.c  to  tiir:c,  depending  upon  the  facts  as  tliey  arc  presented. 

:|c  :i;  ;f; 

or  Jones:    *         If  there  should  now  be  a  disclaimer 

0  ention  to  put  into  force  in  your  p.ants  what  you  have 
cal'd  ilic  closed  sliop,  wh'ch  other  people  would  call  the  unionized 
shop,  would  you  be  willing  to  consider  any  matters  on  that  basis, 
:.o:l  talk  v.-ith  people  about  any  of  the  subjects  which  have  been 

lo-    sted  for  discussion — the  tv.-elve  points,  for  instance? 

Mr.  Gary:  Senator,  a  statement  of  that  disclaimer  would 
not  satisfy  me ;  it  v/ould  be  contrary  to  anything  that  has  ever 
been  done;  and  I  express  the  opinion  that  if  they  made  such  a 
disclaimer  in  good  faith  it  would  not  be  long  before  they  would  be 
eliminated  from  the  laljor  union  organizations,  and  other  men 
with  different  views,  sui)stituted  to  carry  on  the  work  of  unions. 

1  l)ase  my  opinion  on  past  experience  in  this  country  and  other 
countries.  The  mere  statement  that  such  was  their  intention  would 
not  satisfy  me.  Indeed,  as  I  have  told  you,  I  have  been  informd 
that  it  was  their  intention,  in  order  to  get^control,  and  then  do  what 
was  necessary  later.  That  comes  from  a  pretty  important  member 
of  their  organization,  and  I  know  he  has  made  the  statement. 

At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  stockholders  of  t!ic  United  Srcel 
Corporation,  April   18th,   1921,  an  extended   stacemen:   was  made 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


37 


by  Mr.  Gary,  as  the  executive  head  of  tlie  corp(nati(Hi.  which  hus 
been  publish!  under  the  tit.e,  "Principles  and  Policies  of  the  UxiiteJ 
States  Steel  Corporation."  This  discussion  covers  a  \v:de  range 
of  questions.  Portions  which  touch  more  or  -less  direci:y  upon 
the  matter  of  the  open  shop  po'icy  of  the  Corporation  are  quoted 
below  : 

During  the  twenty  years  of  our  existence  there  has  not  been 
material  hostility  shown  or  serious  complaint  made  to  the  manage- 
ment by  our  workmen  themselves,  either  individually  or  in  com- 
mittees or  groups  formed  by  them  (as  permitted  by  our  practise), 
wh'ch  has  not  been  cheerfully  considerd  by  the  management  and 
promptly  disposed  of  to  the  mutual  satisfaction  of  both  parties. 

Obviously  it  is  for  the  pecuniary  interests  of  both  employer 
and  employe  to  avoid  controversy  and  to  maintain  peaceful  and 
satisfactory  relations.  No  outsider  couM  or  would  be  as  solicitous 
for  the  welfare  of  the  employe  as  the  employer,  nor  for  the  em- 
ployer as  the  employe.  Success  for  both  depends  upon  friendly 
relations;  failure  for  both  results  from  hostility.  Both  realize  this 
and,  in  the  present  age,  act  accordingly,  unless  unduly  influenced 
I)y  outsiders  who,  from  personal  ancl  unworthy  motives  or  from 
a  desire  to  attract  public  attention  or  from  misguided  zeal  or  lack 
of  experience  and  information,  are  misled  into  a  position  which  is 
harmful  and  unjustified. 

As  a  rcsu't  of  these  conditions,  misrepresentations  are  made ; 
som.e  with  good  intentions,  but  more  frcciuently  from  improper 
motives. 

The  management  of  the  Steel  Corporation  has  steadfastly 
striven  to  cultivate  a  feeling  of  amity  with  the  workmen  and  has 
been  very  successful. 

Of  course,  under  some  c;i  ^uivisUinccs,  as  the  resu't  of  coercion^ 
threats,  insults  or  wild  promises,  members  of  the  unions,  not 
previously  consulted,  may  and  do  temporarily  join  a  movement 
precipitated  by  the  leaders  and  thus  for  a  time  nominally  increase 
their  membership. 

If  a  workman  desires  to  join  a  labor  union  he  is,  of  course, 
at  liberty  to  do  so,  and  in  that  case  he»  should  not  be  discriminated 
against  by  an  "open  shop"  so  long  as  he  respects  the  rights  of  his 
employer  and  his  co-employes  and  in  every  way  conform.s  to  the 
laws  of  the  Izfhd.  The  "open  shop,"  as  heretofore  publicly  defined 
is  what  we  believe  in  and  stanch  for. 

But  still,  our  opinion  is  that  the  existence  and  conduct  of 
labor  unions,  in  this  country  at  least,  are  inimical  to  the  best 
interests  of  the  employe^;,  the  em.ployers  and  the  general  public. 

*  ^:  * 

The  workman,  if  he  belongs  to  a  labor  union,  becomes  the 
industrial  slave  of  the  union.  He  has  no  power  of  initiative  or 
opportunity  to  apply  his  natural  mental  and  physical  capacity.  If 
our  own  shops  should  becomie  thoroughly  unionized  and  all  others 
likewise  should  recognize  the  unions,  and  the  steel  industry  should 
become  entirely  organized,  as  the  leaders  have  openly  attempted, 


38  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 

then  the  management  would  be  in  the  hands  of  the  unions.  Some 
of  you  have,  no  doubt,  personally  seen  or  read  of  the  results  of 
complete  organization  by  the  unions  in  certain  lines. 

The  natural  and  certain  effects  of  labor  unionism  are  exprest 
by  three  words:  Inefficiency,  high  costs.  And  be  it  rememberd 
that  in  the  end  the  general  public,  which  is  more  interested  in  the 
selling  price  of  all  products,  must  pay  for  extortionate,  unnecessary 
and  unreasonable  costs  of  production.  It  is  primarily,  funda- 
maCntally  and  finally  interested  in  the  existence  and  conduct  of 
labor  unions. 

The  end  sought  by  labor  union  leaders,  that,  at  least,  to 
which  their  efforts  tend,  means  disaster  and  destruction. 

I  would  not  intentionally  do  an  injustice  to  any  union  labor 
leader,  nor  to  a  labor  union.  But  I  firmly  believe  complete  union- 
ization of  the  industry  of  this  country,  as  attempted,  would  be 
tlie  beginning  of  industrial  decay. 

*       *  * 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  natural,  if  not  the  necessary,  result 
of  the  contemplated  progress  of  labor  unions,  if  successful,  would 
be  to  secure  the  control  of  shops,  then  of  the  general  manage- 
ment of  business,  then  of  capital,  and  finally  of  government. 

Tho  it  is  gomg  afield  from  our  immediate  question,  it  may  be 
proper  to  point  out  that  in  this  connection  Mr.  Gary  proposes  as  a 
"possible  solution"  of  the  industrial  problem  a  possible  "antidote 
to  the  labor  union  problem,"  in  "laws — clear,  well  defined,  practi- 
cable and  easy  of  comprehension — covering  these  matters."  "I  do 
not  believe  in  socialism ;  in  Governmental  management  or  opera- 
tion ;  but  I  do  advocate  publicity,  regulation  and  reasonable  con- 
trol thru  Government  agencies." 

In  the  matter  of  Collective  Bargaining  Mr.  Gary's  statement 
shows  caution,  observing  that  other  corporations  are  experimenting 
in  this  field,  and  that  the  Steel  Corporation  is  watching  these  with 
interest,  ready  to  profit  by  either  their  success  or  their  failure. 

We  do  not  endorse  experimentation,  especially  concerning 
workmen,  unless  it  seems  practical  and  reasonable.  I  venture  the 
individual  opinion  that  any  plan  which  seeks  to  deprive  the_  inves- 
tor of  the  control  of  his  property  and  business  is  inimical  to 
the  fundamental  ideas  of  our  country,  and  to  the  public  welfare. 
Any  step  in  this  direction  is  to  be  deployed.  Any  nation  which 
adopts  it  will  fail  to  maintain  a  leading  position  in  industrial  effi- 
ciency and  progress.  A  m.an,  or  group  of  men,  contending  for  a 
different  attitude,  is  opposing  self -protection  and  interest. 

It  is  a  fair  and  wise  conclusion  that  anyone  claiming  the  right 
to  a  voice  in  the  management  of  the  property  of  a  corporation 
should  do  so  thru  a  stockholding  interest,  and  thus  share  responsi- 
bility and  liability  and  profits  with  all  other  stockholders. 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


39 


Our  employes  in  groups,  or  as  individuals,  at  all  times,  have 
access  to  the  office  of  the  foreman  or  to  any  other  superior  officer, 
even  to  the  highest. 

CAN  LABOR  UNIONS  SURVIVE  IN  THE  OPEN  SHOP? 

This  is  a  question  much  discust  in  quotations  scattered  thru 
our  pamphlet.  Others  besides  partisan  and  selfishly  interested 
labor  leaders  will  consider  the  question  vital  to  our  general  dis- 
cussion. Many  employers  and  independent  publicists  magnify  the 
service  which  the  trade  union  has  renderd  to  American  industry, 
scarcely  less  than  do  the  union  leaders  themselves.  The  effect 
of  the  open  shop  upon  the  unions  is  therefore  of  great  significance. 

As  a  further  contribution  to  this  discussion  we  reprint  an 
editorial  from  "America  at  Work,"  for  January  19th,  1921.  It  is 
entitid  "For  Labor  Unions :  A  Receipt  for  Lnmortality."  The 
editor  manifestly  believes  that  the  road  leads  thru  the  open  shop. 
The  union  labor  leader  might  be  inclined  to  agree  with  him  that 
immortality  would  thus  be  insured,  in  so  far  as  death  is  tlic  nec- 
essary condition  precedent  to  that  beatific  state.  The  article  has 
good  material  for  our  debaters. 

If  the  ial)or  union  wishes  to  get  a  firm  grip  on  the  principle 
of  immortality  in  organization  life,  it  must  stop  thinking  so  much 
about  organization  and  think  very  mucli  more  about  the  essentials 
of  the  cause  of  the  working  man. 

At  the  outset,  it  ought  to  turn  its  back  now  and  forever  on  the 
narrow  view  which  makes  everything  turn  on  the  possession  or 
non-possession  of  a  union  card. 

It  ought  to  declare  that  its  interest  is  in  but  three  things  : 

Good  working  conditions,  good  wages ; 

And  the  highest  possible  standard  of  craftsmanship; 
and  place  its  approval  on  these  things  wherever  found. 

It  should  take  the  ground  tliat  it  has  no  quarrel  and  no  cause 
of  difference  with  any  industrial  organization,  organized  or  un- 
organized, union  or  non-union,  where  wages,  conditions  and  out- 
put meet  certain  tests. 

It  ought  to  make  its  campaigns  wholly  on  the  basis  of  the 
service  it  is  capal)le  of  rendering. 

-  This  would  necessarily  imply  the  v/orking  out  of  definite  stand- 
ards, which,  taken  together,  would  constitute  the  labor  union 
stpndard  of  industrial  health,  fairness  and  well-being. 

The  labor  unions  at  present  have  no  definite  standards. 
We  do  not  mean  to  say  that  they  have  no  definite  require- 
ments; they  have.    But  a  requirement  and  a  standard  are  \\\o 
very  different  things. 


40  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


A  requirement  is  a  thing  demanded  ;  a  standard  is  an  unchang- 
ing unit  to  measure  other  things  by. 

The  difficulty,  for  example,  in  attempting  to  satisfy  an  un- 
reasonable child  is  that  the  child  is  so  definite  as  to  requirements, 
and  so  indefinite  as  to  standards. 

A  real  labor  union  standard  would  have  to  be  founded  on  a 
real  philosophy — a  complete  and  well-thought-out  working  theory 
of  the  relation  of  the  workman  to  industry. 

No  mere  disposition  to  increase  wages  from  time  to  time 
as  much  as  may  be  possible  can  possibly  fill  the  place  of  such  a 
theory. 

If  organized  labor  is  to  take  a  perm.anent  and  recognized  place 
among  the  institutions  of  the  time,  it  cannot  do  this  by  any  mere 
display  of  power ;  whatever  the  late  War  did  or  did  not  prove, 
it  proved  that — 

The  mere  display  of  power  is  the  last  thing  in  the  world  that 
insures  the  imm.ortality  of  party,  caste,  or  government. 

]\Iodern  men  do  not  back  down  before  power  as  such  at  all; 
they  only  yield  respect  to  the  foundations  of  power;  and  power 
in  a  democracy  can  have  no  permanent  foundation  except  in 
service. 

America  at  work  does  not  for  a  moment  deny  that  labor 
unions  are  being  opposed  today  by  prejudiced  men,  by  narrow  men, 
by  men  of  feudal  instincts,  and  of  chilld  steel  selfishness.  But 
this  is  not  the  opposition  that  counts.  It  is  not  the  opposition  that 
need  be  reckond  with. 

Labor  unions  are  a^so  being  opposed  today,  not  in  blind  pre- 
judice and  hot  blood,  but  in  response  to  the  verdict  of  the  sober 
second  thought,  by  a  large  group  of  enlightend  Americans  who 
recognize  the  fact  that 

All  "closed  shop"  organizations  are  despotisms. 

It  makes  no  difference  what  kind  of  organization  is  in 
question. 

It  may  be  a  church  to  whose  leaders  there  is  no  grace  of  God 
and  no  power  of  God  save  where  a  particular  ecclesiastical  name 
is  blown  in  the  bottle. 

It  may  be  a  university  which  recognizes  no  culture  without 
an  academic  degree. 

It  may  be  a  school  of  medicine  which  fails  to  understand  that 
the  law  of  health  is.  the  law  of  prevention  and  not  of  cure. 

It  may  be  a  political  party  or  administration  to  v/hich  all  wis- 
dom is  concentrated  in  one  party  and  no  patriotic  service  is  worth 
anything  unless  tagd  with  a  particular  party  label. 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


41 


Or — to  illustrate  from  the  field  we  are  discussing  —  it  may 
be  simply  a  labor  union,  which  cares  not  a  copper  how  good 
a  workman  a  man  is,  what  wages  he  gets,  what  shop  conditions 
he  works  under,  or  what  his  citizenship  and  his  labor  are  worth  to 
his  fellowmen  and  asks  only  whether  he  has  a  union  card.  All 
such  organizations  are  doomed. 

To  put  the  emphasis  on  organization,  and  not  the  en, I  of 
organization,  is  to  cherish  the  container  and  forget  the  contents. 

Either  the  labor  union  of  the  present  day  hus  a  definite  tlieory 
as  to  the  desires  and  dem.ands  of  workingmcn  at  tiie  hands  of 
society  or  it  has  not. 

If  it  has  not,  it  is  the  blind  leading  the  blinci,  md  the  greater 
its  power  the  more  certain  it  is  to  end  in  the  d:tcn  beside  tiie  road. 

But  above  all  things  else  the  labor  union  r.-ust  regard  ilic  im"oii 
first  and  last  as  only  a  means  to  an  end. 

It  m.ust  be  willing  at  any  time  to  modify  its  form,  cluinge  its 
machinery,  abolish  old  plans  and  sul^stitute  new  ones,  if  circum- 
stances indicate  that  the  happiness  and  pror4Jer.':y  of  woiker^,  thru 
more  efficient  service  by  high-class  craftsmansM  )  point  that  Vv-ay. 

In  suggesting  this,  we  are  not  setting  any  impossible  standard. 
We  are  not  supposing  for  a  minute  that  editing  union  labor  charters 
and  constitutions  could  edit  selfishness  and  shoris'ghtcdntss  out 
of  human  nature. 

We  are  only  asking  that  union  la])or  go  as  lar  as  nu^d-.rn 
churches  and  schools,  m.odern  physicians  and  insutance  companies 
have  gone  in  putting  the  emphasis  on  the  end  and  not  the  :neans, 
on  the  aims  of  the  organization  and  not  on  menibersn'p  in  the 
organization  itself. 

The  closed  shop  idea  runs  scjuare  against  all  the  essentials 
of  modern  democracy— 

for  the  way  oi  democracy  is  to  test  everything  l)y  setvice.  to  go 
back  of  the  label  and  try  the  contents. 

When  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  becomes  eidightend 
enough  to  declare  that  it  is  interested  to  push  itself  only  in  those 
parts  of  the  labor  field  that  need  its  help  in  order  to  attain  th.e 
ends  of  good  wages,  good  conditions  and  high  craftsmanship  — 
when  it  proclaims  this  creed  in  public  and  lives  by  it  pri\arv, 
then  and  not  till  then  will  its  power  be  of  the  kind  that  enrluros. 

"He  that  saveth  Irs  life  shall  lose  it" — 
is  as  true  of  organizations  as  it  is  of  men.  ^ 

If  a  m.an  or  an  organization  wants  to  make  itself  dv^sired  and 
cherisht  for  all  time,  the  way  to  do  it  is  to  forget  itseU*  in  the 
widest  possible  service  of  its  cause. 


THE  UAiVlRSlTY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


OPEN  SHOP  AND  CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE 
PROPAGANDA 

In  numerous  instances  tliruout  the  country  the  Chambers  of 
Commerce  has  thrown  the  whole  weiglit  of  its  influence  a<^ainsi 
I  he  union  or  closed  shop  and  for  the  open  shop.  Naturally  this 
has  occurd  only  in  the  cases  of  that  type  of  Cham.ber  of  Connr.erce 
which  does  not  admit  labor  representatives  on  equal  footing  witii 
employers.  This  latter  type  of  organization  is  becoming  more  com- 
mon, but  tliere  are  many  of  the  older  type  thruout  the  country 
Xot  all  employers  have  joind  in  the  campaign  for  the  open  sliop 
and  not  all  members  of  the  numerous  Chambers  of  Commerce. 
Boards  of  Trade  and  Business  and  Commercial  clubs  who  have 
pronounced  for  the  open  shop  have  personally  given  their  approval, 
any  more  than  all  the  members  of  the  churches  have  approved  of 
the  activity  of  church  agencies  in  resisting  the  open  shop  cam- 
paign. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  activity  of  many  Chambers  of  Com- 
iViCrce,  there  is  quoted  below  the  text  of  a  large  newspaper  dis- 
play issued  by  the  Industrial  Relations  Committee  of  the  Phila- 
delpliia  Chamber  of  Commerce,  which  appeard  in  the  Evening 
Bulletin  for  March  19th,  1921.  In  bold  black  letters  which  the 
printers  know  as  36-point  the  heading  reads:  "WE  STAND  FOR 
THE  "OPEN  SHOP."  The  following  text  occupies  half  of  a 
newspaper  page. 

An  "Open  Shop"  is  one  wherein  any  man  can  work  who  wants 
lo.  Its  name  distinguishes  it  from  the  shop  whicli  is  closed  to 
all  men  v/ho  do  NOT  l)elong  to  a  labor  union. 

The  "Open  Shop"  is  by  no  means  new.  American  industries 
\vt.re  a'l  organ'zed  on  the  principle  upon  which  the  "Open  Shop" 
rests.    The  "Closed,  or  Union  Shop"  is  a  relatively  new  departure. 

There  are  several  markt  differences  between  the  "Open"  and 
ihe  "Closed  Shop."  In  the  "Open  Shop"  the  employer  selects  his 
en:].)Ioycs  for  their  ability;  in  the  "Closed  Shop"  employes  need 
no  qualification  other  than  membersliip  in  the  union  —  and  frhey 
arc  iV't  allowd  l)y  the  union  to  work  there  unless  they  are  mem- 
liers  of  tb.e  union.  In  the  "Oi^cn  Sliop"  the  employer  determines 
the  quantity  and  quai'ty  of  tlie  output;  in  the  "Closed  Shop"  the 
iai:;:UL  is  regulated  by  union  officials,  who  need  have  no  interest 
in  either  the  shop,  the  product  or  the  city.  In  the  "Open  Shop"  the 
conduct  of  the  estabiishment  is  regu'ated  l^y  the  employer,  who 
has  the  welfare  of  the  in.dustry,  tlie  employes  and  the  city  at 
b.eart;  in  the  "Closed  Shop"  the  industry  is  regulated  by  radical 
kaci<  rs.  whose  interests  are  entirely  personal. 

In  tlie  "Open  Shop"  tlic  work  ng  hours  are  devoted  to  produc- 
ti\e  Vv'ork;  in  the  "Closed  Shop"  union  affairs  are  forwarded  in 
I:  'i;;';  prvid  for  hy  tlie  employer.     In  the  "Open  Shop"  every  man 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


43 


is  paid  according  to  his  ability;  in  the  "Closed  Shop"  employes  en- 
gaged in  the  same  work  are  paid  the  same  daily  wage. 

In  the  "Open  Shop"  a  man  may  increase  his  incom.e  by  his. 
industry  and  initiati\  e ;  in  the  "Closed  Shop"  neither  virtue  is 
encouraged. 

Almost  without  exception,  the  leaders  of  American  indu.'.tries 
are  men  who  have  been  employes.  With  "Cosed  Shop"  conditions 
their  opportunities  wou.d  never  have  arrived.  The  "Open  biiop" 
opens  the  gates  of  opportunity  for  workers;  the  "Closed  Sliop" 
locks  them. 

The  basis  of  the  "Open  Shop"  is  a  full  day's  work  for  a  fuil 
dav's  pay. 

*       *  * 

We  do  not  question  the  right  of  labor  to  form  unions.  We 
are  not  seeking  to  destroy  labor  unions.  There  is,  however,  an 
element  in  labor  unions,  particularly  among  the  paid  leaders,  who. 
thru  self-interest,  seek  to  use  the  unions  to  create  industrial  un- 
rest, misunderstanding  between  employers  and  employes,  and  to 
lim.it  production. 

These  men,  through  misrepresentation  and  specious  arguments, 
seek  to  impress  their  unlawful  and  un-x^merican  ideas  on  the  rank 
and  file  of  union  membership.  These  paid  leaders  are  largely 
responsible  for  the  attempt  to  impose  the  "Closed  Shop,"  with  its 
lack  of  opportunity  to  the  worker,  on  American  industry. 

The  "Closed  Shop"  is  the  thin  edge  of  the  wedge  to  make 
union  labor  a  privileged  class  —  exempt  from  legal  or  moral  obliga- 
tion to  the  laws  and  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

The  "Closed  Shop"  would  eventually  deprive  us  of  our  rights 
of  citizenship  —  of  our  b'ood-bought  freedom  —  it  \Vonld  nullify 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

As  patriotic,  freedom-loving  citizens,  in  common  with  every 
true  American  institution,  we  oppose  the  "Closed  Shop"  and  stand 
unequivocally  for  the  "Open  Shop." 


THE  CLOSED  SHOP  AND  COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING 

Murray  T.  Quigg,  of  New  \'ork.  writes  a  letter  to  the 
WEEKLY  REVIEW,  publisht  in  the  January  26th,  1921,  number, 
in  which  he  maintains  that  a  closed  shop  would  completely  pre- 
clude the  possibility  of  "collective  bargaining,"  which  labor  leaders 
and  much  of  the  general  American  public  consider  to  be  of  such 
l)rime  importance  in  the  present-day  industrial  world. 

The  principal  reason  for  the  existence  of  labor  unions  i< 
tliat  the  employer  of  labor  is,  generally  speaking,  so  free  from 
the  necessity  of  employing  any  particular  person  that  he  does 
not  have  to  1>argain  as  to  what  he  will  pay  for  labor.  Subject  to 
the  laws  of  supply  and  demand,  he  has  only  to  decide  what  lie 
thinks  it  necessary  to  pay  a  workman  to  live  for  a  day,  so  thai 
be  can  come  back  the  next  day  and  work  some  more.  This  applies 
also  to  the  number  of  hours  the  workman  must  toil  and  the  factory 


44 


THE  UNVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


conditions  under  which  he  must  work.  Under  such  an  economic 
condition  there  is  no  bargaining,  either  collective  or  otherwise. 

The  existence  of  a  union  able  to  control  its  members  and  to 
maintain  a  morale  under  discouraging  circumstances  puts  the  work- 
man in  a  position  to  force  the  employer  to  discuss  the  price  of 
labor  and  to  make  a  better  offer  than  he  would  under  other  con- 
ditions. Rut  even  with  the  trade  union  in  existence,  he  does  not 
have  to  bargain  with  it.  By  delay  and  expense  he  can  procure  in- 
dependent workmen.  Even  if  he  cannot  man  his  entire  factory  with 
independent  workmen  he  can  perhaps  emp'.oy  enough  men  to  keep 
it  go:ng.  The  presence  of  independent  workmen  provides  a  com- 
petitive element  in  the  labor  market  which  makes  the  agreement 
finally  reacht  between  an  employer  and  a  labor  union  in  its  nature 
a  real  bargain.  But  if  there  be  no  independent  workmen  available, 
if  the  union  is  the  only  source  of  labor  suppply,  the  employer  is 
just  as  unable  to  bargain  as  the  workman  was  when  there  was  no 
union. 

In  a  closed  shop  surrounded  by  closed  shop  conditions  there 
is  no  bargaining,  co'lective  or  otherwise.  You  pay  the  price  that 
labor  demands,  or  you  go  out  of  business.  The  fewer  employers 
in  a  trade  a  particular  community,  the  l)etter  it  is  for  the  labor 
organization.  If  it  can  force  all  of  the  business  of  its  trade  into 
the  hands  of  one  or  a  small  group  of  employers  and  make  a  con- 
tract with  that  employer  or  group,  then  all  of  its  members,  work- 
ing for  the  same  employer  or  group,  will  work  under  the  same 
conditions.  No  one  will  have  a  grievance,  except  the  man  who 
thinks  he  is  a  little  better  than  the  rest  and  would  like  to  be  free 
to  work  at  his  own  rate  and  on  his  own  term.s.  He  is  a  nuisance 
to  the  labor  organization,  but  as  final  remedy  he  can  always  be 
tried  for  some  violation  of  rules,  expeld  and  blacklisted  from  the 
trade. 

TRYANNY  AND  THE  CLOSED  SHOP 

The  wide-open  shop  leads  to  tyranny  employers,  conter.d 
labor  leaders  and  large  numbers  of  puijIicis'LS,  who  cite  the  records 
of  industrial  history  in  proof.  The  tight-closed  shop  can  be  and  is 
no  less  tyrannical,  coiitend  those  who  also  cite  incidents  in-  recent 
industrial  history.  Thus  it  often  transpires  that  those  who  are 
contending  against  a  closed  shop  are  in  substantial  agreement  with 
those  who  are  no  less  vehemently  contending  against  an  open  shop. 
Both  are  opposed  to  tyranny.  One  party  has  seen  the  evil  practist 
in  the  open  shop  and  the  other  has  seen  it  in  the  closed  shop. 

A  great  amount  of  argument  has  been  employd  to  shov*^  that 
the  so-cald  open  shop  is  a  shop  closed  against  all  union  workmen. 
Another  great  amount  of  argument  has  liecn  devoted  to  revealing 
tb.e  alleged  iniquities  of  the  closed  shop,  by  advocating  an  open 
shop,  vv'ithout  regard  to  checks  upon  the  tyranny  of  unfettered 
employers.    Murray  T.  Ouig^'.  writing  in  a  letter  publisht  in  tlie 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


45 


WEEKLY  REVIEW  for  January  26th,  1921,  a  portion  of  which 
is  quoted  elsewhere  under  another  topic,  contends  vehemently 
against  the  closed  shop,  but  proposes  an  alternative  which  is  not 
the  open  shop  of  the  type  which  leaves  the  workman  at  the  mercy 
of  an  irresponsible  employer.  He  desires  to  perpetuate  the  element 
of  bargaining,  as  between  employer  and  employe,  but  neither  must 
!)e  permitted  to  gain  such  power  as  to  drive  the  bargain  mercilessly. 

In  view  of  the  moral  issues  involvd  in  the  closed  shop,  it  is 
difficult  to  understand  how  any  one  can  be  of  an  open  mind  about 
it.  Assuming  the  existence  of  a  job,  there  is  only  one  reason  for 
employing  a  man,  and  that  is  that  he  is  the  best  man  available  to 
fill  the  job.  Any  other  reason  for  employing  him  is  a  false  one. 
Since  this  is  obvious,  why  should  any  one  suggest  that  a  man  be 
employd  because  of  h:s  membership  or  non-memliership  in  a 
union?    *    =^  * 

The  science  of  life  is  the  science  of  values.  It  is  as  true  in 
the  industrial  world  as  in  everything  else.  We  wish  a  medium 
tlirough  which  the  employer  of  labor  and  a  representative  of  labor 
CZ.U  meet  vr.d  determine  the  value  of  the  services  which  the  work- 
man is  rendering.  Today  we  have  neither  standards  nor  machinery 
for  determining  standards  by  which  to  gauge  the  value  of  services. 
All  that  we  determ.ine  is  the  price  v/hich  represents  the  deadlock  of 
force  between  em^ploycrs  and  employes.  If  an  industry  cannot 
afford  to  pay  its  workmen  wages  which  are  sufficient  to  enalile 
them  to  live  decently  and  properly,  to  educate  their  children  it 
should  not  em.ploy  them,  and  within  the  near  future  the  state  will 
proba'ily  forbid  such  unsound  tmploynient. 

*       *  * 

Tile  issue  of  the  closed  shop  is  upon  us.  Red-b'ooded  men 
must  m.ake  up  their  minds.  It  is  the  issue  of  tyranny  against  liberty. 
The  right  of  workmen  to  concerted  action  in  driving  a  wage  bar- 
gain is  not  involvd.  The  right  has  been  exercised  time  and  time 
again  in  open  shops  and  exercised  effectively. 

Society  is  interested  and  it  will  not  be  satisfied  until  the  price 
of  v/ages  represents  a  value  and  not  the  deadlock  of  force. 


THE  UNIVERSAL  CLOSED  SHOP. 

It  not  the  open  shop,  then  the  closed  shop.  iMany  labor  leaders 
insist  that  the  one  or  the  other  must  be  chosen.  Alany  em.ploycrs 
entirely  agree  with  them.  The  two  groups  differ  as  far  as  the 
poles  when  it  comes  to  deciding  which  it  shall  l)e.  But  the  two 
groups  are  agreed  that  it  should  and  m.ust  be  one  or  the  other.  A 
large  number  of  other  persons  see  the  possibility  of  and  believe 
in  a  kind  half-open,  half-closed  shop. 

Debaters  upholding  the  negative  of  our  Cjuestion  may  stand 
with  the  union  labor  leaders  cfr  w^th  these  "other  persons.!'  An 


46 


THE  UNVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


editorial  in  the  WEEKLY  REVIEW,  January  26th,  1921,  presses 
the  argument  against  the  advocates  of  the  closed  shop. 

Union  labor  leaders  constantly  have  as  their  olijective  the  uni- 
versal closed  shop.  They  regard  non-membership  in  a  union  in  any 
trade  in  which  there  is  a  union,  as  treason  to  the  cause  of  labor.  The 
attitude  is  quite  intelligible.  But  there  is  no  reason  why  intelligent 
persons,  looking  at  the  matter  from  the  standpoint  of  the  general 
public,  should  assent  to  the  notion  that  the  labor  unions  must  be 
either  everything  or  nothing.  A  union  may  be  pov/erful  without 
being  omn'potent.  If  it  succeeds  in  bringing  into  its  organization  a 
preponderating,  or  even  a  very  large,  body  of  the  workers  in  the 
trade,  it  can  exercise  powerful  pressure  upon  employers  in  behalf 
of  any  reasonable  —  and,  if  circumstances  favor  it,  even  of  very 
unreasonable  —  demands.  Yet  many  persons  see  no  distinction 
between  opposition  to  the  closed  shop  principle  and  opposit-on  to 
the  whole  system  of  labor  organization.  They  do  not  stop  to 
think  either  of  the  large  possibilities  of  united  action  which  union 
labor  can  avail  itself  of  without  proscription  of  non-union  labor, 
or  of  the  int*olerable  situation  which  would  arise  if  such  proscriptior. 
were  complete.  In  that  situation  we  should  a'l  be  at  the  absolute 
m.ercy  of  the  labor  unions  ;  they  could  at  any  moment  enforce  any 
demand  they  might  make  by  the  threat  of  paralysis  of  the  whole 
activities  of  the  comm.unity.  It  is  the  privilege  of  the  micmbers  of 
a  union  to  refuse  to  work  alongside  of  anybody  who  is  not  a  mem- 
ber of  a  union;  and  if  the  union  is  sufficiently  strong,  it  may,  by 
making  use  of  this  privilege,  be  able  to  compel  any  given  employer 
to  accept  the  closed  shop  principle.  But  likewise  it  is  the  privilege 
of  any  employer  to  refuse  to  accept  that  principle.  Those  employers 
who  are  doing  so,  and  who,  in  doing  so,  are  not  resorting  to 
measures  that  are  in  themselves  oppressive  or  un^.awful,  are  fight- 
ing a  good  fight  for  all  —  a  fight  against  the  reduction  of  the 
country  to  a  condition  of  subjection  to  arbitrary  class  rule. 


« 


MAINLY  FOR  THE  NEGATIVE 


DECEPTION  IN  THE  "OPEN"  SHOP 

Much  of  the  discussion  claiming  to  set  forth  the  open  shop  as 
a  "great  and  glorious  principle"  of  Americanism,  is  swept  as>de  not 
only  by  union  lalior  leaders,  but  by  publicists  not  members  of  or 
otherwise  identified  with  the  labor  unions.  They  maintain  that  this 
principle  is  not  involvd,  but  that  the  campaign  for  the  open  shop 
is  designd  to  "pull  the  wool  over  the  eyes"  of  the  public,  while 
employers  re-assume  the  arbitrary  control  over  industry  of  which 
recent  legislation,  and  the  vigorous  measures  adopted  by  the  union 
movement,  have  tended  to  deprive  them. 

This  view  is  set  forth  with  characteristic  vigor  by  Samuel 
Gompers,  President  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  in  the 
article  printed  be'ow.  This  is  supplied  by  Mr.  Gompers'  office  in 
Washington  in  mimeographed  form,  and  has  doubtless  been  re- 
printed at  various  times  and  places. 

The  term  "Open"  Shop  was  coined  to  deceive.  Union  men 
are  not  permitted  to  work  in  the  so-called  "open"  shops  if  the  em- 
ployers know  the  applicant  is  a  member  of  a  labor  organization. 
The  employers  want  the  so-called  "open"  shop  because  their  em- 
ployes must  accept  any  wages,  hours  of  employment  or  working 
conditions  fixt  arbitrarily  by  the  emibloycrs.  This  is  autocracy  in 
industry. 

Jincmies  of  Labor,  those  employers  who  believe  in  autocracy  in 
industry,  term  the  non-union  shop  the  "open"  shop.  They  clothe 
themselves  in  a  cloak  of  righteousness  and  hypocritically  declare 
that  the  "open"  shop  is  an  "American  shop  where  men  are  free  to 
work  out  their  own  destiny."  Thcj  denounce  labor  organizations 
and  charge  them  with  destroying  all  ambition  in  the  workers. 

If  the  "open"  shop  is  such  a  wonderful  and  "patriotic"  insti- 
lution  why  is  it  that  in  all  history  there  is  not  a  single  case  where 
the  employes  in  a  ipiion  shop  went  on  strike  to  compel  the  estab- 
lishment of  an  "open"  shop?  But  there  are  many  thousands  of 
cases  of  em.ployes  ceasing  work  to  compel  an  employer  to  grant 
I  he  union  shop.  You  never  hear  workmen  extolling  the  virtues  of 
the  "open"  shop,  where .  wages  are  fixt  arbitrarily  by  the  em- 
ployers. Working  conditions  are  also  determind  by  the  employers. 
The  employes  have  nothing  to  say  as  to  their  wages,  hours  of  em- 
ployment or  working  conditions. 

Where  the  em.ployes  are  unorganized  the  employer  is  at  an 
advantage.  Fear  of  discharge  compels  the  employes  to  accept  con- 
ditions to  which  they  secretly  and  sullenly  object.-  Those  wdio 
\voi;!d  e5ta])lish  the  "open"  or  non-union  shops  arc  un-American 


48  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


because  they  take  from  their  employes  the  right  to  have  something 
to  say  about  what  they  shall  receive  in  paymiCnt  for  their  work, 
v/hile-  at  the  same  tin:e  the  employers  maintain  the  right  to  organize 
and  act  collectively  in  all  matters  pertaining  to  their  own  business 
affairs.  I  know  of  no  case  where  both  union  and  non-union  men 
work  under  union  regulations.  This  is  an  anom.aly.  There  are 
cases  where  union  men  work  in  non-union  shops,  but  it  is  what 
is  termed  "under  cover ;"  that  is,  their  presence  is  not  known  to 
the  employer. 

The  "open"  shop  cannot  destroy  the  labor  unions,  but  the 
employers  who  are  unfair  believe  that  it  is  the  greatest  weapon 
they  can  use  to  accomplish  that  end.  Trade  unionism  is  a  symbol 
of  those  things  which  are  best  in  life.  It  is  a  real  living  thing 
which  the  toilers  love  and  cherish.  And  the  soul  of  the  movement 
is  the  hearts  and  lives  of  those  who  have  built  themselves  into  it 
by  sacrifice  and  toil.  Those  who  would  destroy  the  trade  union 
movement  wish  to  take  from  the  workers  the  right  to  carry  out  the 
following  declaration  made  in  1910  by  the  A.  F.  of  L.  convention 
of  that  year : 

"Organized  labor  contends  for  the  improvement  of  the 
standard  of  life,  to  uproot  ignorance  and  foster  education,  to 
instill  character  and  manhood  and  an  independent  spirit  am.ong 
.  our  people,  to  bring  about  a  recognition  of  the  interdependence 
of  the  modern  life  of  man  and  his  fellowman.     It  aims  to 
establish  a  normal  workday,  take  the  children  from  the  factory 
and  workshop  and  place  them  in  the  school,  the  home  and  the 
playground.    In  a  word  the  unions  of  labor,  recognizing  the 
duty  of  toil,  strive  to  educate  their  members,  to  make  their 
homes  more  cheerful  in  every  way,  to  contribute  an  earnest 
effort  toward  making  life  the  better  worth  living,  to  avail 
their  members  of  their  rights  as  citizens  and  to  bear  the  duties 
and  responsibilities  and  perform  the  obligations  they  owe  to 
our  country  and  our  fellowmen.    Labor  contends  that  in  every 
effort  to  achieve  its  praisev/orthy  ends  all  honorable  and  law- 
ful means  are  not  only  commendable  but  should  receive  the 
sympathetic  support  of  every  right-thinking  progressive  man." 
Certain  employers  want  the  trade  unions  destroyd,  but  they 
are  few  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  employers  in  America. 
If  trade  unions  could  be  destroyd  there  would  be  no  organization 
to  contend  for  the  principles  declared  above,  for  the  trade  union 
movement  is  the  only  movement  that  has  for  its  true  purpose  the 
economic  advancement  of  humanity. 

IF  NOT  THE  OPEN  SHOP— WHAT? 

The  affirmative  debator,  after  sett'ing  forth  his  case,  may 
be  inclined  to  turn  upon  the  debator  for  the  negative,  and  ask, 
"Since  you  do  not  believe  in  the  open  shop,  what  do  you  believe 
in?"  The  negative  may  not  be  disposed  to  reply  "The  closed  shop." 
Has  the  debater  for  the  affirm.ative  the  right  to  force  him  to 
say  that?    Do  the  terms  of  the  debate  force  him  to  make  any 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


49 


reply?  Will  it  be  considerd  sufficient  to  win  his  case  if  he  demon- 
strates that  the  open  shop  is  not  the  solution  of  our  serious  indus- 
trial problems? 

However  those  questions  are  answered,  the  debaters  on  both 
sides  m.ay  well  find  out  what  program  or  programs  are  being  advo- 
cated instead  of  the  open  shop.  Therefore  another  extended 
article  is  printed  here  from  Samuel  Gompers,  President  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor.  This  is  issued  in  pamphlet  form 
by  the  Washington  office  of  the  Federation,  under  the  title,  "Tlic 
Union  Shop  and  Its  Antithesis." 

The  synonymis  for  "union"  shop  and  "non-union"  shop  respec- 
tively are  "democracy"  and  "autocracy."  In  the  union  shop  the 
workers  are  free  men.  They  have  the  right  of  organizing  in  trade 
unions  and  to  bargain  collectively  with  their  employers  through 
representatives  of  their  own  choosing.  Employes  in  the  non-union 
shop  are  like  cogs  in  a  machine.  They  have  nothing  to  say  as  to 
the  conditions  under  which  they  will  work,  but  must  accept  any  wages, 
hours  and  working  conditions  that  may  be  fixt  arbitrarily  by  the 
employer. 

A  non-union  man  who  accepts  employment  in  a  union  shop 
has  the  privilege  of  joining  the  union  which  has  a  voice  in  deter- 
mining with  employers  the  wages,  hours  and  conditions  of  work. 
He  is  given  time  in  which  to  make  application,  if  he  so  desires. 

No  union  man,  if  known,  is  permitted  by  the  employers  to 
work  in  a  non-union  shop. 

Men  who  believe  that  the  Chinese  Exclusion  law  should  be 
repeald,  who  believe  the  Literacy  Test  should  be  repeald,  who 
believe  that  hordes  of  illiterate  immigrants  from  southeastern 
Europe  shouM  be  perm.itted  to  enter  the  United  States  as  freely 
as  citizens  of  this  country  pass  from  state  to  state,  are  the  men 
who  object  to  the  union  shop.  They  believe  in  autocracy  in 
industry.  They  hope  to  use  these  hordes  to  lower  the  standard 
of  living  of  the  workers  of  the  'United  States.  Furtliermore, 
they  will  fight  to  the  last  ditch  to  prevent  the  taking  away  from 
them  of  the  arbitrary  power  of  dictating  wages,  hours  and  con- 
ditions of  employment  to  the  workers  in  their  em.ploy. 

iMost  relentless  propaganda  has  been  used  to  discredit  tlio 
union  shop  and  to  hold  up  to  the  public  the  great  benefits  of  the 
non-union  shop.  No  more  malicious  misrepresentation  of  a  desir- 
able condition  in  industry  ever  was  launcht.  It  began  in  the 
early  1900's  when  a  number  of  associations  were  formd  to  destroy 
the  trade  union  movement.    Lawyers  were  employd  to  travel  al)Out 


f 


50  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 

the  country  delivering  addresses,  all  of  which  were  confined  to 
denunciation  of  labor  organizations.  The  most  venomous  charges 
were  made  against  them. 

Judges  were  influenced  by  this  propaganda  to  decide  that 
the  union  shop  was  illegal.  The  opinions  of  these  judges  con- 
taind  most  bitter  statements  against  the  workers  who  had  had 
the  temerity  to  organize.  They  were  chargd  with  with  being  non- 
progressive obstacles  to  the  welfare  of  the  country,  and  un- 
American.  These  opinions  were  heralded  through  the  newspapers 
as  the  turning  point  from  which  the  trade  unions  would  gradually 
disintegrate.  Employers'  associations,  citizens'  alliances  and  organi- 
zations of  many  other  names  composed  of  employers  or  their 
agents  kept  up  a  perpetual  criticism  of  Labor. 

Ti^.e  reason  was  purely  selfish.  Tlie  antagonists  of  Labor 
believed  that  if  they  couM  destroy  the  trade  union  movement, 
wages  could  be  reduced  to  a  low  standard ;  that  it  would  not  be 
necessary  for  them  to  safeguard  the  health  of  their  employes  or 
build  plants  in  which  the  machinery  was  so  protected  that  it  was 
of  less  danger  of  injury  to  the  workers. 

When  Labor  sought  the  enactment  of  laws  providing  for 
compulsory  education  it  was  such  men  who  fought  them  most 
\  iciously.  The  latter  believd  if  the  children  of  the  workers  were 
permitted  to  go  to  school  that  w^hen  they  grew  oMer  they  would 
demand  better  conditions  of  employment  than  their  fathers.  It 
is  for  tlie  same  reason  they  have  been  and  are  now  demanding  the 
non-union  shop. 

It  is  the  principal  method  used  to  repress  the  workers,  to 
browbeat  them  and  keep  them  in  perpetual  fear.  To  make 
-Americans  is  none  of  their  concern.  They  do  not  care  whether 
their  employes  are  loyal  citizens  or  not  as  long  as  they  can  have 
their  goods  manufactured  at  less  cost  than  a  fair-minded  employer 
of  Labor. 

But  tliis  propaganda  that  stird  the  country  in  the  early 
1900's  reacted.  The  people  learnd  that  the  men  who  were  em- 
plo3'd  in  union  shops  were  possest  of  better  characters  and  higher 
principles  that  made  them  miore  intelligent,  proficient,  and  pro- 
luctive  workers  than  those  employd  in  the  non-union  shops.  Be- 
sides it  made  them  better  citizens. 

Furthermore,  investigations  made  by  many  employers  taught 
them  that  co'lective  bargaining  with  organized  workmen  brought 
:;reater  results  than  the  arbitrary  fixing  of  conditions  for  the 
non-union   workers.     Gradually  the  benefits  of   the  union  sltop 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


51 


oecamc-  better  known.  Employer  after  employer  changed  his  at- 
titude and  voUintar'ly  agreed  to  the  union  shop.  There  are  many 
thousands  of  employers  in  the  United  States  who  are  conducting 
the  union  shop  and  would  not  change  under  any  circumstances. 

But  after  the  armistice  was  signd  the  profiteers  in  order  to 
hide  their  nefarious  practices  launcht  a  bitter  crusade  against  the 
union  shop.  It  has  reacht  high  tide  and  will  soon  recede,  as 
the  public,  and  especially  the  non-union  workers,  are  beginning  to 
realize  that  the  only  hope  for  relief  is  in  organization.  This  has 
been  exemplified  in  the  past  year  by  more  than  a  mil' ion  men 
joining  the  organized  labor  movement,  until  now,  July.  1920.'  there 
are  5,500,OCO  organized  workers  in  America. 

The  repeated  crusades  against  the  union  shop  have  been  boom- 
erangs. They  have  called  the  attention  of  the  non-union  workers 
to  their  economic  plight. 

When  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  was  organized  the 
lj:g  cities  of  the  country  were  fild  with  sweat-shops.  The  tene- 
ment house  system  in  New  York  was  so  abominable  that  the 
legislature,  through  the  insistence  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  enacted  a  law  for  its  abolition.  It  was  most  highly  in- 
jurious to  the  health  of  the  workers  on  sanitary,  economic,  moral 
and  social  grounds.  Whole  families  lived  in  one  room  wliere 
cigars  and  clothing  were  made  by  women  and  children. 

It  was  the  trade  union  movement  that  gradually  drove  the 
>\veat-shops  from  the  tenement  houses  and  compeld  the  establish- 
ment of  factories  in  well-ventilated  buildings.  The  sweat-shop 
was  the  non-union  shop. 

The  sweat-shops  were  not  abolisht,  however,  until  the  workers 
were  organized  and  demanded  sanitary  working  conditions.  This 
required  the  establishment  of  factories.  The  factories  were  union 
shops.  While  the  bread-winners  of  families  who  livd  in  the  tene- 
ment houses  were  at  work  in  the  factories,  their  dependents  gaind 
health  in  the  improvd  living  surroundings  because  of  the  law  for- 
bidding home  work. 

Those  now  living  who  in  the  early  eighties  were  employd  in 
the  large  plants  of  the  country  realize  the  great  improvements 
made  in  the  conditions  of  employment.  It  was  not  until  tlie 
union  shop  was  demanded  and  largely  secured  that  these  economic 
benefits  were  gaind. 

It  is  because  Labor  is  continually  seeking  improvements  in 
working  condition^  and  the  standard  of  living  that  the  objections 
are  arousd  of  those  who  desire  to  keep  the  workers  servile.  L'pon 


52 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


what  other  grounds  would  employers  oppose  the  organization  of 
the  workers?  What  other  reason  could  be  given?  They  are  the 
men  who  clothe  themselves  in  the  cloak  of  piety  and  raise  their 
eyes  upward  in  horror  wlien  they  hear  anyone  speak  of  the  union 
shop.  They  stand  in  the  way  of  progress  as  others  have  done 
since  tile  beginn'ng  of  time.  They  are  the  reactionaries  who 
I)el:eve  in  involuntary  servitude.  They  are  the  men  who  seek 
legislation  to  tie  men  to  their  jobs.  The  union  shop  is  an  ob- 
stacle to  their  dreams  of  autocracy  in  industry.  Therefore  they 
seek  to  m^akc  the  union  shop  detestable  in  the  eyes  of  the  people 
while  the  non-union  shop  is  lauded  as  the  greatest  harbor  for 
"free"  men  that  could  possibly  be  conceivd. 

But  employes  in  a  non-union  shop  soon  find  out  that  they 
are  not  free  nien.  When  they  enter  such  a  plant  they  leave  all 
hope  of  economic  improvement  behind. 

What  is  a  union  shop? 

A  union  shop  is  a  shop  where  the  employes  are  mem])ers  of 
trade  unions  or  are  willing  to  join.  The  workers  through  rcpresen- 
tat!\'es  selected  by  themselves  meet  the  employers  in  the  industry 
on  a  conjnon  groimd.  They  hold  meetings  in  their  unions  in 
wliicii  all  grievances  they  may  have  are  thoroughly  discust.  These 
include  wages,  hours  of  employment  and  rules  covering  their  health, 
safety  and  comfort. 

The  union  shop  represents  true  democracy  in  industry.  There 
are  no  class  distinctions  or  autocratic  rulings  to  disturb  the  best 
relations  between  the  workers  and  their  employers.  The  right 
oi  organizing  into  trade  unions  is  conceded.  Employers  and 
emplo3-es  meet  as  man  to  man.  Each  respects  the  other.  The 
employe  is  a  willing  v/orker  and  the  employer  keeps  the  part  of 
the  Ijargain  he  has  made  with  the  workers  through  their  chosen 
representatives. 

What  is  a  non-union  shop? 

A  non-union  shop  is  where  the  v/orkers  who  are  unorganized 
are  employd  as  individuals.  Their  Vv-ages  and  Iiours  of  work  are 
ined  without  consultation  Vv-itli  them  and  without  their 
!  -.i.t  If  the  worker  has  grievances  he  is  uunable  to  present 
ihirn.  Fear  of  retaliation  by  the  employer  or  liis  representative 
in  this  plant  keeps  the  worker  from  making  complaints.  If  he 
docs  complain  he  obtains  no  redress.  Consequently,  the  workers 
work  day  in  and  day  out,  week  in  and  week  out,  in  fear  of  dis- 
charge. This  artificial  atmosphere  is  created  foi*  the  purpose  of 
forcing  the  cm.ployes  to  greater  exertion.    Peacemakers  are  scat- 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


53 


tcred  throughout  the  plant  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  this  per- 
petual fear  of  losing  their  jobs  before  the  non-union  worker..  But 
this  fails.  The  unorganized  workers  become  morose,  sullen  and 
rebellious.  There  is  no  comradeship  among  such  employes.  Con- 
sequently they  work  under  duress  and  without  enthusiasm  for 
their  employment. 

An  autocratic  power  may  dictate  any  rule  that  may  be  con- 
ceivd.  No  protest  can  be  made  by  the  non-union  workers,  as 
they  have  only  fear  for  each  other,  the  fear  that  if  they  voice  their 
disapproval  of  the  conditions  under  which  they  work  some  fellow 
worker  would  report  it  to  a  "straw  boss."  That  would  mean 
separation  from  their  jobs. 

Why  is  the  union  shop  preferable? 

Countries  grow  great  as  their  people  increase  in  confidence 
and  loyalty.  Men  who  are  congenially  employd  who  can  hold 
up  their  heads  and  say  what  they  think  without  fear  of  the  heads- 
man's axe  separating  them  from  their  employment  make  real 
Americans.  Only  in  union  shops  can  men  be  found  who  are 
striving  for  better  conditions  of  employment  in  order  that  they  and 
their  dependents  can  enjoy  life  and  happiness.  They  do  not  enter 
the  p'ants  in  the  morning  in  fear  and  trembling  that  some  super- 
i.umerary  will  meet  them  with  stinging,  unjust  criticism. 

It  is  always  noticeable  that  "straw  bosses"  in  non-union  shops 
are  burly  men  whose  very  looks  inspire  fear.  There  is  no 
intimidation  in  the  union  shop.  Everything  is  open  and  above 
board.  In  the  union  shop  if  a  foreman  or  superintendent  wishes 
something  to  be  done  by  the  men  they  inform  the  latter  in  the 
language  that  any  fair  man  would  use  to  another.  There  is  no 
brutality  in  their  talk.  Because  of  this  fact  the  employes  go  about 
their  task  in  a  whole-hearted,  loyal  manner. 

What  is  the  "open  shop?" 

.An  "open  shop"  is  a  non-union  shop  where  tlie  fiction  is  kept 
alive  that  union  men  may  work  but  are  not  permitted  to  do  so. 

An  employer  who  refuses  to  employ  a  union  man  will  say : 
"1  do  not  discriminate  aga"nst  union  and  non-union  men.  I 
conduct  an  'open  shop,'  that  is,  those  who  app^y  for  work  will 
i)c  given  employment  when  they  are  needed.  This  is  a  shop  where 
men  are  'free.'" 

But  when  a  workman  applies  for  employment  he  is  askt  a 
number  of  questions.  In  many  cases  he  has  to  fill  out  a  question- 
naire giving  his  entire  history  from  the  cradle  to  the  present  time, 
and  one  of  the  most  important  queries  is,  "Are  you  a  mer.il)er 


5. 


THE  UNVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOAIA 


of  any  union?"  If  the  man  answers  this  question  in  the  affirnui- 
tive  he  is  not  employe!.  He  is  told  that  his  name  will  be  placed 
on  file  and  that  he  will  be  notified  when  there  is  work  for  him. 

But  he  never  is  notified.  Instead  his  name  is  sent  to  other 
manufacturers  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  his  being  employd 
elsewhere.  This  is  a  method  used  by  the  non-union  shop  employers 
to  place  on  the  black  list  all  members  of  unions. 

The  so-called  open  shop  influences  wages  and  the  standard 
of  living  downward,  and  it  is  based  upon  the  sycophancy  of  the 
most  docile  and  servile  and  the  most  immediate  needs  of  those  in 
distress  of  the  poorest  situated  among  the  workmen. 

This  so-called  "open  sho'p"  is  the  disintegrating  factor  that 
leads  to  the  non-union  shop;  in  other  words,  the  shop  which  is 
closed  to  the  union  man,  no  matter  from  whence  he  hails  or  what 
his  skill  and  competency. 

What  is  the  "closed  shop?" 

The  term  "closed  shop"  was  originated  'about  1903.  It  was 
coind  by  the  enemies  of  trade  unions  for  a  purpose.  That  pur- 
pose was  and  continues  to  be  to  divert  attention  from  the  de- 
fensive action  of  union  men. 

The  union  creates  certain  desirable  conditions.  The  non- 
uniunist  tries  to  destroy  them.  By  not  competing  with  one 
another  for  the  employment,  the  unionist  make  their  advantage. 
By  competing,  the  non-unionists  would  leave  the  dictation  of 
terms  wholly  to  employers.  And  then  the  employers,  when  the 
union  has  gaind  something  through  its  advantage,  come  forward 
with  a  demand  for  the  "open  shop"  and  make  an  appeal  to  the 
public  in  the  name  of  liberty. 

The  term  "closed  shop"  is  a  false  designation  of  the  union 
shop.  Those  who  are  hostile  to  labor  cunningly  employ  the  term 
"closed  shop"  for  a  union  shop  because  of  the  general  antipathy 
which  is  ordinari'y  felt  toward  anything  being  closed,  and  with  the 
specious  plea  that  the  so-called  "open  shop"  must  necessarily 
afford  the  opportunity  for  freedom.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
union  shop  is  open  to  all  workmen  who  perform  their  duty,  and 
they  participate  in  the  benefits  and  advantages  of  the  improve! 
conditions  which  a  union  shop  affords.  The  union  shop  also 
implies  duties  and  responsibilities.  This  is  incident  to  and  tin 
corollary  of  all  human  institutions. 

The  dishonest  idea  given  in  the  term  "closed  sliop"  is  that 
no  one  can  secure  employment  there  except  members  of  track 
unions. 


THE  OPEN  SHOP  .  55 

When  the  unions  make  an  agreement  with  the  employers  as 
to  wages,  hours  and  working  conditions,  it  is  natural  to  believe 
that^  the  contract  is  between  members  of  unions  only  and  the 
cmp:oyers.  But  men  can  be  employd  who  are  not  members  of  a 
union.  A  certain  period  is  given  them  to  prove  their  competency 
and  then  if-  the  result  is  favorable  their  applications  as  members 
of  the  unions  are  accepted.  Any  wage  worker  can  join  a  trade 
union.  All  are  open,  wide  open  to  all  wage-workers  qualified 
at  the  occupation  organized.  They  pay  an  entrance  fee  barely 
sufficient  to  equalize  the  payments  of  unions'  benevolent  -  benefit's 
and  current  cost  of  administration.  No  union  ever  asks  non- 
unionist  to  pay  for  the  slightest  percentage  of  the  damage  he  has 
done  as  a  disruptionist.  It  is  literally  and  positively  true,  without 
evasion  or  equivocation,  that  trade  unions,  and  consequently 
union  shops,  are  open  for  all  wage-workers  whom  any  employer 
wouM  possibly  contemplate  as  employes  who  would  be  kept  regu- 
larly and  permanently  in  his  employ. 

What  the  trade  unionists  call  for  is  the  union  shop.  Those 
who  speak  of  it  as  a  "closed  shop"  are  enemies  of  Labor  who  by 
'hstort.ng  the  facts  seek  to  discredit  the  trade  union  movement 

The  questibn  is  often  askt,  "why  should  a  non-union  man 
who  secured  employment  in  a  union  plant  agree  to  joint  the  union 
after  he  has  proved  his  competency.  Why  should  he  not  Ik-  at 
hberty  to  work  as  a  non-union  man?" 

Wages  in  union  shops  are  higher  than  in  non-union  shop^ 
1  he  liours  of  work  are  less  and  the  working  conditions  arc  more 
dcs:rablc.  These  are  gaind  thru  the  workers  dealing  with  the 
employer  collectively.  Each  member  contributes  a  sniall  sum  to 
carry  on  the  work  of  tlie  union.  Why  should  a  non-unionist  ])e 
permuted  to  enjoy  the  benefits  gaind  without  paying  h's  share 
>t  the  cost  of  securing  them-  It  is  a  fundamental  principle  that 
:iose  who  are  beneficiaries  of  organization  shouM  share  in  the 
responsibilities  and  obligations  involvd   in  the  achievements 


COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING  THROUGH  TRADE 
UNIONS 

Elsewhere  in  this  pamphlet  the  importance  of  collective  bar- 
-■animg  m  relation  to  our  question  is  discust.     Social  scientists 

re  almost  a  unit  in  maintaining  that  justice  to  the  worker  can  be 
^nsured  only  thru  some  form  of  collective  action  on  their  part  so 

'>ng  as  capital  and  industrial  management  are  organized  in  'the 
l.n-''e  corporations  wliicli  have  become  the  characteristic  type  of 


56 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


American  business.  Employers  are  themselves  in  great  numbers 
committed  to  this  principle,  and  to  some  method  designd  to  em- 
body the  principle.  When  it  comes  to  the  question  of  method 
sharp  differences  enter.  As  set  forth  elsewhere,  employers  and 
publicists — in  what  proportion  none  can  say  accurately — believe 
that  other  methods  of  organization  than  that  of  the  prevailing  type 
of  trade  union  is  more  efficient  and  more  just  to  all  concerned 
than  is  the  union. 

The  case  for  the  unions  is  set  forth  in  the  following  state- 
ment, publisht  by  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  in  the  form 
of  a  pamphlet  v/rittcn  by  Samuel  Gompers,  President  of  the 
Federation.  It  is  "Lal)or's  Proposal  to  Insure  Greater  Industrial 
Peace,  with  Questions  and  Answers  Explaining  the  Principle." 

Collective  bargaining  means  that  the  organized  employes  of 
a  trade  or  industry,  thru  representatives  of  their  own  choosing, 
sha'l  deal  with  the  cmiployer  or  employers  in  the  making  of  wage 
scales  and  working  conditions.  Collective  bargaining  is  the  only 
practical  proposal  for  adjusting  relations  between  the  manage- 
ment and  the  workers  in  a  business  way,  assuring  a  fair  deal  to 
both  sides. 

Each  individual  joins  v/ith  his  fellov/  workman  to  ask  collec- 
tively for  better  wages  and  conditions  of  employment  that  he 
could  not  secure  thru  his  own  efforts  alone.  An  employer  of,  say. 
five  hundred  men,  has  an  unfair  advantage  if  he  deals  with  them 
as  individuals.  To  make  the  em.p'oyes  equal  in  power  and  influence 
to  the  employer  they  mjust  be  organized,  and  thru  regularly  chosen 
representatives,  m.eet  the  employer  on  a  common  footing.  By 
conceding  points  on  each  side  an  agreement  can  be  finally  reacht 
that  will  maintain  better  relations  and  therefore  greater  industrial 
peace. 

In  no  other  waik  of  life  does  the  idea  exist  that  a  man  must 
arbitrarily  accept  any  offer  that  may  be  made  by  another.  There 
are  two  sides  ahvays  to  an  agreement.  Each  side  ought  to  have 
equal  chances  to  propose  and  insirt  upon  what  it  considers  a  fair 
agreement. 

Industrial  peace  can  be  secured  only  by  the  righting  of 
wrongs  suffered  by  the  workers.  If  a  body  of  workers  has  a 
grievance,  it  can  be  adjusted  only  thru  conferences  with  the  em- 
ployer or  his  representative.  As  all  can  not  meet  the  employer  at 
one  time  it  is  necessary  for  them  to  select  representatives  to  carry 
out  their  will  as  exprest  collectively.  This  right  is  identical  with 
that  always  held  by  the  employer  and  never  challenged  by  the 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


57 


law  or  the  public. 

In  all  spheres  of  activity  in  which  employers,  business  men, 
public  men  and  citizens  generally  have  any  matter  in  which  their 
interests  are  involvd,  they  not  on'y  avail  themselves  of  appearing 
by  their  own  representatives  and  counsel  of  their  own  choosing, 
whether  in  litigation  before  the  courts  or  in  business  relations,  but 
they  are  guaranteed  even  by  the  constitution  of  our  country  the 
right  to  be  heard"  by  counsel.  The  claim  of  the  workers  in  this 
respect  is  founded  upon  the  same  fundamental  beneficial  principle — 
the  right  of  the  workers  to  be  represented  by  counsel  (not  lawyers), 
represcntatixes  of  their  own  number  and  of  their  own  choice. 

For  instance,  in  great  industries  such  as  the  iron  and  steel 
industry,  the  employes  have  nothing  to  say  as  to  their  wages  and 
working  conditions.  They  work  twelve  hours  a  day  and  every 
two  weeks,  in  changing  from  day  to  night  work,  tliey  are  com- 
peld  to  rema"n  at  their  tasks  for  twenty-four  hours  straight. 
This  has  been  the  practice  since  the  industry  has  been  organized 
into  corporations.  There  have  been  much  opposition  and  grumb- 
ling from  the  employes,  but  these  have  never  reacht  the  heads  of 
the  corporations,  or  if  they  did,  found  no  response. 

The  em.ploycs  were  unorganized.  Collective  bargaining,  except 
for  a  short  time  years  ago  with  a  small  number  of  highly  ski'd 
employes,  was  unknown.  The  great  mass  of  workers  had  no 
voice  in  what  they  should  receive.  If  a  superintendent  or  forciDan 
wisht  to  change  the  conditions  of  employment,  he  could  do  so 
without  question,  as  each  department  is  expected  to  produce  a 
certain  amount  in  value.  The  straw  bosses  pincht  and  schemd 
to  do  it.  The  only  way  they  ever  tried  was  to  take  something 
away  from  the  employes.  They  never  considerd  that  most  effi- 
cient production  could  be  secured  only  when  agencies  for  assur- 
ing justice  to  employes  and  the  best  management  and  working 
conditions  were  establisht.  It'  vvas  this  sort  of  industrial  servi- 
tude that  culminated  many  times  in  great  strikes  in  the  steel  in- 
dustry. It  brought  the  strike  of  1919.  The  head  of  the  great 
corporation  in  that  industry  refused  to  meet  representatives  of 
the  employes  even  to  hear  their  greviences.  If  coHective  bar- 
gaining had  been  in  force  in  that  industry  the  twelve  and  twenty- 
four  hour  day  would  have  disappeard  years  ago,  and  it  would 
have  been  accomplisht  without  a  strike  Now  the  responsible  head 
of  that  corporation  knows  so  little  of  what  the  steel  woikers 
are  thinking  that  he  even  asserts  that  they  want  the  twelve-hour 
day. 


58  THE  UNVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


As  the  employes  were  employd  as  individuals  and  kept  apart 
Ijy  racial,  creed,  national  prejudices  and  other  means,  they  could 
not  unite  to  submit  their  greivances  until  they  became  members 
of  trade  unions.  They  could  not  understand  each  other,  nor 
could  they  succeed  in  eliminating  the  causes  that  had  formerly 
kept  them  in  isolated  and  hostile  groups. 

Collective  bargaining  in  industry  docs  not  imply  that  wage 
earners  sha'l  assume  control  of  industry,  or  .responsibility  for 
financial  m.anagement.  It  proposes  that  the  employes  shall  have 
the  right  to  organize  and  to  deal  v*'ith  the  employer  thru  selected 
representatives  as  to  wages  and  working  conditions. 

Among  the  matters  that  properly  come  within  the  scope  of 
corective  bargaining  are  wages,  hours  of  labor,  conditions  and 
relations  of  employment,  the  sanitary  conditions  of  the  plant,  safety 
and  comfort  regulation  and  such  other  factors  as  would  add  to  the 
health,  safety  and  comfort  of  the  employes,  resulting  in  the  mutual 
advantage  of  both  employers  and  employes.  But  there  is  no  belief 
held  in  the  trades  unions  that  its  members  shall  control  the  plant 
or  usurp  the  rights  of  the  owners. 

Collective  bargaining  takes  into  consideration  not  on'y  mutually 
-advantageous  conditions  and  standards  of  life  and  work,  but  also 
the  huiran  equation,  a  desideratum  too  long  neglected. 

APPLICATION  OF  PRINCIPLES 

2.    "What  is  coliective  bargaining? 

A.  S-rr:i):y  ,'i  lius.Ress  proposition  hy  which  the  organized  em- 
ployes in  a  trade  or  industry  deal  collectively  with  their  employer 
or  cr'^ployers. 

Q.    Hov7  is  this  accomplished? 

A.  The  employes  in  their  union  appoint  a  committee  to  draw 
up  ncv/  wape  scales  and  working  conditions.  These  are  reported  to 
the  union  for  consideration.  Then  in  regular  meeting  each  ques- 
tion is  taken  up  and  discust  from  every  angle.  Finally  tb.e  union 
agrees  upon  a  Vv-age  sca'e  and  v/orking  conditions  to  submit  to 
the  eniployer.  A  committee  for  this  purpose  is  selected,  as  the 
entire  number  of  em.ployes  can  not  meet  in  conference  with  the" 
employer.  This  committee  meets  the  employer  or  his  representa- 
tive and  discusses  the  desires  of  the  employes  collectively  thru 
tlieir  union. 

Q.    Does  this  committee  have  full  power  to  act? 

A.  No.  It  n:ust  report  back  to  the  union  the  result  of  its  con- 
ference with  the  employer.  If  the  report  is  satisfactory  the  union 
approves  the  settlement  and  an  agreement  for  a  stated  period  is 
s'l^ncd  by  both  parties.  If  unsatisfactory,  further  conferences  with 
tile  employer  or  his  representative  are  held  until  an  agreement  is 
reacbt. 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


59 


Q.    What  advantage  has  such  a  joint  agreement? 

A.  It  removes  friction  that  always  exists  where  employes  have 
no  voice  in  the  making  of  their  wages  and  conditions  of  employ- 
ment. It  is  democracy  in  industry  as  opposed  to  autocracy.  The 
employes  know  what  they  are  to  receive  for  a  certain  period  and 
therefore  can  plan  ahead  in  huying  a  home  or  making  improve- 
ments in  their  standard  of  'ivin^i". 

Q.    Does  collective  bargaining  protect  the  employes? 

A.  Yes.  Employes  can  not  be  dischargd  at  the  wdl  of  a 
■\straw  boss."  Charges  against  them  must  be  made,  and  after  a 
trial,  if  they  are  found  true,  then  the  offenders  can  be  dischargd. 
If  untrue,  they  retain  their  positions. 

Q.    What  effect  does  this  have  on  the  "straw,  bosses"? 

A.  It  makes  them  m.ore  careful.  They  are  not  so  arbitrary 
or  do  not  seek  troul)le.  It  brings  about  mutually  better  feelings 
and  relations. 

Q.  Does  the  fact  that  an  employe  can  not  be  discharged 
without  cause  make  him  more  independent  and  likely  to  create 
friction? 

A.  No.  Men  who  are  placed  on  their  honor,  which  is  the 
result  of  collective  bargaining,  feel  they  have  an  interest  in  the 
plant  and  make  every  effort  to  carry  out  the  union  agreement. 
They  are  not  nagd,  browbeaten  or  coercd.  They  take  an  interest  in 
their  work  and  the  result  is  a  better  output  and  a  lower  turnover 
of  labor.  Their  initiative  powers  are  not  curtaild  and  because  of 
that  they  try  to  create  new  methods  that  wi'l  be  of  benefit  to 
the  business.  They  are  men  and  not  mere  machines,  and  this 
results  in  better  feeling  between  employers  and  employes. 

Q.    Can  unorganized  employes  bargain  collectively? 

A.  Not  with  a  certainty  that  they  will  l)e  treated  fairly.  Un- 
organized employes  are  subject  to  influences  that  will  hamper  their 
efforts  for  fair  bargaining. 

Q.  Why? 

A.  Ik.ng  unorganized  they  can  not  agree  collectively  to  any 
proposition  that  will  benefit  them,  as  the  influences  referd  to  will 
divert  them  into  accepting  less  than  that  to  which  they  are  entitld. 

Q.    What  are  these  influences? 

A.  iXIen  employed  as  individuals  always  retain  the  fear  that 
they  are  to  be  discharged  or  have  their  wages  lowerd  whenever  the 
employers  sees  fit  to  do  it.  They  are  not  in  a  position  to  enter 
objections  to  their  working  conditions  because  of  these  same  fears. 
They  are  voiceless  in  their  own  affairs  because  they  can  not  act 
collectively.  Each  is  suspicious  of  the  other.  Some  feel  that  they 
are  overlookt  by  the  employer  while  others  are  favorites  who  re- 
ceive all  the  best  work.  Jealousies  are  created.  Discontent  is  rife. 
Therefore  when  the  unorganized  employes  all  meet  together  to 
decide  what  they  shall  ask  the  employer  they  become  cowardly 
for  fear  some  other  employe  will  report  them  to  the  employer. 
Those  who  take  an  active  part  always  are  the  favorites  of  the 
employer*  and  they  advocate  only  those  things  to  v^hich  the  great 
majority  of  the  employes  would  object  if  they  were  not  afraid. 
The  outcome  of  such  a  meeting  is  never  satisfactory.  Instead, 


60 


THE  UNVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


discontent  grows  and  in  time  the  employes  form  a  real  trade  union 
and  from  that  time  on  they  do  not  fear  to  express  their  thoughts 
or  openly  object  to  the  statements  of  those  known  as  company  men. 

SUMMARY 

Collective  bargaining,  it  will  be  seen,  makes  for  a  better 
citizenship.  It  uplifts  those  who  \vhile  unorganized  were  timid 
and  servile.  The  industries  accepting  collective  bargaining  are 
stabilized  and  can  face  the  future  with  certainty  instead  of  doubt. 
Raising  the  standard  of  citizenship  of  the  workers  thru  collective 
bargaining  affects  the  community  in  which  they  live.  The  stand- 
ard of  living  is  improvd,  the  children  are  benefited  thru  better 
chances  for  education  and  the  home  is  made  happier  by  the  fact 
tliat  the  head  of  the  family  is  able  to  earn  a  sufficient  wage  to 
support  those  dependent  upon  him.    This  is  democracy  in  industry. 

Autocracy  in  industry  is  where  the  employer  fixes  the  wages 
and  hours  of  employment  arbitrarily.  They  must  be  accepted  by 
the  employes  Avithout  question.  Those  v/ho  object  are  dischargd. 
This  creates  a  servile  class  that  makes  for  inferior  citizenship. 

The  issue,  then,  is  l>ctwcen  collective  Ijargaining  and  auto- 
cracy in  industry.  The  good  of  the  nation  demands  collective  liar- 
gaining.    There  can  be  no  defense  for  autocracy  in  industry. 

AN  OPEN  SHOP  CATECHISM  FOR  WORKINGMEN 

Debaters  on  both  sides  of  tlie  question  will  soon  learn  that 
a  large  proportion  of  the  concrete  facts  used,  especial'.y  by  tliose 
v/ho  oppose  the  open  shop,  come  from  recent  developments  in  the 
steel  and  textile  industries.  There  is  also  a  great  variety  collected 
from  the  building  indur.try.  This  last  extends  all  over  the  coun- 
try, and  the  clash  betv/ecn  employer  and  employe  has  scarcely  been 
more  sharp  in  one  section  than  in  another.  Stetl  has  not  entirely' 
controld  in  this  fie'd,  ])nt  the  shortage  in  hous'ng  ail  over  the 
country  has  aggraAriied  the  industrial  war  \vhcrevcr  lion-ies  and 
business  houses  v/ere  demanded  beycnd  the  willingness  of  labor 
to  provide  it  at  desired  costs. 

But  in  the  case  of  steel  and  cloth,  the  contest  has  been  con- 
centrated. Factory  conditions  have  encouraged  labor  organiza- 
tion, and  clashes  between  labor  and  capital  or  industrial  manage- 
ment tend  to  become  acute. 

The  Amialgamated  Clothing  Workers  of  America,  with  offices 
at  31  Union  Scjuare,  New  York  City,  have  vigorously  prest  the 
fight  for  the  union  shop  in  their  industry.  From  their  educational 
department  a  pamphlet  has  been  issued  which  gives  "Twenty-seven 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


61 


Questions  and  x*\nswers  on  the  Open  Shop  Movement,"  especiall} 
addrest  to  working  men  and  women,  and  is  an  appeal  to  them 
to  join  the  unions  in  the  demand  for  the  "100  percent  union  shop.' 
The  author  is  Paul  Blanshard. 

On  the  cover  of  the  pamphlet  is  a  drawing  reprinted  from 
the  LIBERATOR  representing  a  burly  employer  armd  with 
heavy  brass  knuckles,  standing  over  the  prostrate  form  of  an 
unarmed  laboring  man,  whom  he  has  feld  to  the  ground.  On  the 
center  sheet  of  the  pamphlet  is  another  drawing  from  the  LIBERA- 
TOR, showing  a  portrait  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  and,  below,  the 
following  indicated  as  quoted  from  him;  "The  strongest  bond  of 
human  synipathy,  outside  of  the  family  relation,  should  be  one 
uniting  all  working  pcop'.e  of  all  nations  and  tongues  and  kindred!" 

The  first  page  of  the  pamphlet  is  a  reprint  of  Mr.  Dooley's 
remarks  on  the  open  shop,  which  are  quoted  elsewhere  in  our 
pamphlet. 

The  pamphlet  is  sold  for  a  small  fee  and  is  available  thru 
the  offices  of  the  organization  as  indicated. 
What  is  an  Open  Shop? 

In  theory  an  Open  Sliop  is  a  shop  open  to  any  worker  whom 
the  employer  may  hire. 

What  is  an  Onen  Shop  in  practice? 
The  Open  Shop  as  favored  by  the  Open  Shop  Movement  is 
^]^op  closed  to  union  labor. 

What  proof  is  there  fcr  the  statement  that  the  Open  Shop 
Movement  favors  a  shop  closed  to  union  labor? 

The  statements  of  Open  Shop  leaders  and  the  action  of  Open 
Shop  corporations. 

What  statements  have  been  made? 

The  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United  States  in  its  Open 
Shop  Referendum  No.  31,  Section  9,  adopted  by  an  almost  unani- 
mous vote  by  Chamloers  of  Commerce  in  the  country,  declares  it- 
self opposed  to  dealing  collectively  with  employes  who  are  in 
any  way  "controld  by  or  in  such  dealing  in  any  degree  represent 
any  outside  group  or  interest  in  the  Cjuestions  at  issue."  This 
policy  would  mean  the  destruction  of  every  local  union  in  the 
United  States  affiliated  with  a  national  union.  Chambers  of 
Commerce  in  all  parts  of  the  United  States  have  engaged  in  union- 
-n.ashing  campaigns  since  this  referendum  was  adopted. 

Elbert  H.  Gary,  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the 
United  States  Steel  Corporation,  declared  himself  in  favor  of 
the  Open  Shop  policy.  He  said:  "There  is  at  present,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  large  majority  of  l)Oth  employers  and  employes  no 


62 


THE  UNVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


necessity  for  labor  unions."  The  Interchurch  World  Movement 
states  that  in  practice  this  policy  meant  the  discharge  of  any  ac- 
tive union  men. 

Eugene  Grace,  President  of  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Corporation 
whose  salary  was  estimated  in  the  New  York  Times  at  $1,000,000 
a  year,  admitted  on  the  witness  stand  before  the  Lockwood  Com- 
mission in  New  York  that  the  Open  Shop  policy  of  his  corpora- 
tion means  not  only  the  refusal  to  deal  with  unions  in  the  steel 
plants  but  the  boycotting  of  contractors  who  deal  with  union  labor. 
He  declared  that  he  "would  not  deal  with  the  unions,  even  tho 
they  embraced  95  percent  of  his  employes." 

A.  M.  Glossbrenner  of  the  Indiana  Manufacturers'  Associa- 
tion in  explaining  why  he  favored  an  open  shop  resolution  said. 
"We  will  not  employ  an  individual  in  any  part  of  the  plant  that 
does  not  sign  an  individual  contract  in  which  it  is  exprest  that  he 
is  not  and  will  not  become  a  member  of  a  labor  organization 
while  in  our  employ." 

What  actions  have  Open  Shop  corporations  taken  against 
unions? 

In  every  American  industry  in  which  the  Open  Shop  Move- 
ment has  attaind  any  success  the  result  has  been  the  smashing  of 
unions,  the  discharge  of  union  leaders  and  the  reduction  of  wages. 
Examples  may  be  found  in  the  steel  industry,  the  textile  industry, 
the  mining  industry  and  the  men's  clothing  industry. 

What  has  the  Open  Shop  Movement  done  in  the  steel  in- 
du3try? 

The  Open  Shop  Movement  in  the  steel  industry  led  by  Judge 
Gary,  of  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  has  resulted  in  the 
establishment  of  the  12-hour  day  and  the  seven  day  week,  with  an 
average  work  week  for  all  steel  workers  of  nearly  69  hours.  It 
has  reduced  the  wages  so  low  that  the  Interchurch  World  Move- 
ment reported  72  percent  of  all  iron  and  steel  workers  as  earning 
less  than  a  "minimum  of  comfort"  wage.  It  caused  a  strike  of 
365,000  steel  workers  in  which  union  organizers  were  k'ld,  hundreds 
of  strikers  were  imprisond  on  false  charges,  union  meetings  were 
broken  up,  union  members  discharged  and  an  elaborate  spy  sys- 
tem was  built  up  to  protect  "scab"  workers  in  their  "sacred  right" 
to  sign  a  contract  for  the  twelve  hour  day  and  a  starvation  wage. 
The  leaders  of  the  Open  Shop  Movement  in  the  steel  industry 
have  deliberately  smasht  the  unions  and  kept  down  wages  by 
violence. 

What  has  the  Open  Shop  Movement  done  in  the  textile  in- 
dustry? 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


63 


The  tcxitle  workers  are  among  the  lowest  paid  workers  in 
ihe  United  States.  According  to  the  latest  statistics  of  the  United 
States  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  the  average  wages  of  most  cot- 
ton mill  workers  were  more  than  40  percent  below  the  minimum 
necessary  to  support  a  family  in  decency.  Since  these  figures 
were  compiled  the  textile  capitalists  of  the  entire  country  have 
entered  upon  a  vigorous  union-smashing  campaign  with  a  reduc- 
tion of  wages  from  20  to  35  percent.  The  textile  workers  have 
never  been  thoroly  unionized.  In  Law^rcnce,  Paterson,  Utica,  and 
other  textile  centers,  the  Open  Shop  leaders  have  fought  the 
unions  by  deporting  their  organizers  without  warrants  of  arrest, 
shooting  dow^n  pickets,  beating  up  both  men  and  women,  prohi- 
biting legal  public  meetings  and  establishing  spy  systems. 

What  has  the  Open  Shop  Movement  done  in  the  mining 
industry? 

In  West  Virginia,  which  is  the  center  of  the  Open  Shop 
campaign  in  the  mining  industry,  the  coal  barons  have  conducted  a 
civil  war  against  union  members  and  union  organizers.  Scores 
of  union  miners  have  been  killd  by  company  "guards."  The  Logan 
County  Coal  Operators'  Association  pays  $32/00  a  year  to  the 
county  sheriff  who  hires  gunmen  to  drive  out  union  men  and 
union  organizers  from  the  county..  A  typical  contract  which  the 
miners  in  the  "open  shop"  mines  of  West  Virginia  are  forced  to 
sign  is  recorded  l;y  Winthrop  D.  Lane  in  the  New  York  Evening 
Post:  "The  employer  will  not  knowingly  employ  or  keep  in  his 
employment  any  memljer  of  the  United  M'.nc  Workers  of  America. 

.  .  it  being  understood  that  the  policy  of  said  company  is  to 
operate  a  non-union  mine,  and  that  it  would  not  enter  into  any 
contract  of  employment  under  any  other  conditions." 

The  death  rate  of  zinc  miners  in  the  "open  shop"  mines  of 
Missouri  is  more  than  twice  the  dcatli  rate  in  union  mines  w^here 
the  union  insists  on  protection. 

What  has  the  Open  Shop  Movement  done  in  the  men's 
clothing  industry? 

The  men's  clothing  industry  was  for  many  years  an  open  shop 
and  therefore  "sweat  shop"  industry  in  which  the  workers  were 
compeld  to  ^vork  long  hours  for  very  low  wages..  After  years  of 
struggle  a  powerful  union,  the  Amalgamated  Clothing  Workers, 
was  formd  which  has  not  only  organized  the  industry  in  the 
United  States  and  Canada  but  has  increast  wages  and  establisht 
the  44-hour  week.  In  New  York,  Baltimore,  Chicago,  Rochester 
;ind  other  centers  the  Amalgamated  Clothing  Workers  has  set  up 
machinery  for  the  ioint  control  of  working  conditions  with  the 


64 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


manufacturers.  Thru  this  joint  machinery  all  important  indus- 
trial controversies  were  scttld  by  Labor  Adjustment  Boards  com- 
posed of  representatives  of  the  workers,  the  employers  and  an 
impartial  chairman. 

The  "industrial  government"  of  the  Amalgamated  Clothing 
Workers  and  the  clothing  manufacturers  in  the  large  clothing  cen- 
ters has  been  calld  by  m.any  leading  economists  the  most  advanced 
step  in  industrial  relations  in  Amicrica  today. 

In  December,  1920,  the  clothing  manufacturers  of  New  York 
and  Boston,  and  a  number  in  Baltimore  declared  v/ar  upon  the 
Amalgamated  Clothing  Workers  for  the  purpose  of  reestablish- 
ing the  open  and  sweat  shop.  They  began  a  lockout  of  about  75,- 
000  workers  in  these  three  cities  and  attempted  to  reduce  wages 
33  percent.  They  refused  to  submit  to  a  joint  investigation  of 
the  conditions  of  the  clothing  industry  and  they  smasht  the  mach- 
inery for  settling  disputes  with  the  union.  But  the  lockout  faild 
because  of  the  unity  of  the  workers. 

What  is  the  chief  weapon  of  the  employers  in  the  Open 
Shop  Movement? 

Unemployment. 

How  do  the  employers  utilize  unemployment  periods  to 
destroy  labor  unions  and  reduce  wages? 

They  use  the  army  of  the  unemployd  as  a  strike-breaking 
arm.y.  They  lay  off  union  leaders  on  the  pretext  of  "slack  work" 
and  refuse  to  take  them  back.  They  declare  lockouts  against  work- 
ers who  v/ill  not  accept  a  wage  cut.  They  refuse  to  arbitrate  dis- 
putes because  they  think  that  they  can  starve  workers  into  sub- 
mission. American  employers  have  used  every  period  of  unem- 
P-oyment  for  concerted  attacks  upon  organized  labor  since  the  panic 
of  1837  when  they  succeeded  in  smashing  most  of  the  labor  unions 
in  the  United  States  and  in  completely  destroying  the  American 
labor  press. 

Is  it  true  that  American  financiers  have  deliberately  created 
unemployment  "to  put  labor  in  its  place"? 

W.  Jett  Lauck,  one  of  the  most  noted  statistical  economists 
in  the  United  States  submitted  a  brief  of  125,000  words  to  the 
Railway  Labor  Board  showing  that  a  capital  combine  of  twelve 
New  York  financial  institutions  inaugurated  a  policy  of  nation- 
wide shut-downs  in  order  to  cut  the  prices  of  farm  products  and 
destroy  the  union  scale  of  wages.    Mr,  Lauck  declares  : 

"The  industrial  paralysis  which  has  staggerd  America  is  capi- 
tal on  strike  against  society.  And  capital,  nationally  and  inter- 
nationally organized  and  concentrated,  takes  the  stand  that  the 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


65 


capital  strike  shall  go  on  until  labor  comes  to  its  knees  and  con- 
sents to  sweeping  reductions  of  wages  and  also  consent  to  surren- 
der its  right  to  bargain  collective!}'  on  a  scale  co-extensive  with  the 
organization  of  the  employers." 

The  twelve  great  New  York  financial  institutions  which  arc 
charged  with  attempting  to  "deflate  labor"  center  in  the  house  of 
J.  P.  Morgan.    They  are : 

Mutual  Life  Insurance  Co. 

First  National  Bank. 

Equitable  Trust  Co. 

J.  P.  Alorgan  &  Co. 

Guaranty  Trust  Co. 

Equitable  Life  Assurance  Society. 

American  Surety  Co. 

National  Surety  Co. 

Mechanics  and  Metals  National  Hank. 

National  City  Bank. 

New  York  Trust  Co. 

Chase  National  Bank. 

The  American  Woolen  Co.,  one  of  the  most  notorious  profi- 
teering corporations  in  the  United  States,  after  three  years  of  un- 
l)rccedentcd  prosperity,  shut  down  its  plants  for  many  months, 
threw  thousands  of  employes  out  of  work,  and  then  forced  the 
workers  to  return  at  reduced  wages. 

Do  the  employers  believe  in  unions  for  themselves? 

Yes.  Tiicy  find  that  business  unions  arc  an  alxsolute  necessity. 
They  organize  their  business  interests  into  corporations  and  act 
collectively.  The  same  employers  who  insist  on  the  right  of  in- 
dividual contract  for  the  workers  would  expel  from  their  busi- 
ness any  stockholder  who  tried  to  act  individually  for  the  com- 
pany. E.  H.  Gary,  who  believes  that  laljor  unions  are  not  nec- 
essary is  the  chairman  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  United 
States  Steel  Corporation  wdiich  is  a  union  of  more  than  125  in- 
dependent steel  companies  capitalized  at  approximately  one  billion 
five  hundred  million  dollers. 

Do  the  emloyers  apply  the  Open  Shop  principle  to  their 
own  unions? 

No.  Employers  who  belong  to  manufacturers'  associations 
do  not  extend  to  non-members  the  privileges,  protection  or  credit 
of  the  organization.  In  order  to  get  the  advantage  of  an  em- 
ployer's union,  the  employer  must  pay  dues  and  agree  to  abide  by 
the  rules  of  his  union. 

Tiic  New  York  Stock  Exchange  has  more  rigid  rules  for  the 


66 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


conduct  of  its  members  than  any  "closed  shop"  union  in  the  United 
States.  Employers  who  refuse  to  join  the  employers'  unions  are 
often  forced  to  join  by  threat  of  enforced  bankruptcy. 

Some  of  the  great  unions  of  employers  and  business  men  in 
the  United  States  are : 

The  National  Association  of  Manufacturers. 

The  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United  States. 

The  National  Metal  Trades'  Association. 

The  National  Founders'  Association. 

The  National  Erectors'  Association. 

The  Manufacturers'  Association  of  Illinois. 

What  do  the  Open  Shop  employers  advocate  as  a  substitute 
for  labor  unions? 

They  often  attempt  to  form  shop  committees  and  "company 
unions,"  under  their  own  control. 

Why  does  organized  labor  oppose  "company  unions'^? 

1.  Because  company  unions  do  not  have  the  power  and  in- 
dependence to  fight  for  decent  living  conditions  for  the  workers. 
They  depend  upon  the  "generosity"  of  the  employer.  The  employe 
who  attempts  to  challenge  the  power  of  the  employer  without  the 
backing  of  a  real  labor  union  is  discharged  as  "an  agitator." 

2.  Because  company  miions  have  been  constantly  used  by 
employers  to  break  real  unions  of  the  workers  and  to  deceive 
the  v/orkers  by  fake  "democracy." 

The  Western  Union  Telegraph  Co.  organized  a  company 
union  to  keep  down  v.^ages  and  prevent  the  organization  of  a 
telegraphers'  union.  This  company  union,  calld  "The  Association 
of  Western  Union  Employes,"  is  used  to  break  up  strikes.  There 
is  a  clause  in  its  constitution  which  forbids  strikes.  The  wages 
of  telegraphers  are  low  and  they  have  no  real  protection  against 
discharge. 

The  "Big  Five"  Packers  of  Chicago  attempted  to  give  their 
employes  a  fake  p^an  of  "democracy  in  industry"  as  a  sulistilute 
for  the  union.  The  features  of  this  plan  are  characteristic  of 
company  unions.  The  v/orkers  were  given  the  "privilege"  of  bring- 
ing all  complaints  to  the  boss  and  discussing  them  in  the  presi- 
dent's private  office  but  the  millionaire  profiteer  packers  did  not 
concede  one  atom  of  power  to  their  workers.  The  "democracy" 
was  all  talk.  The  plan  was  scheduled  to  begin  with  a  15  percent 
wage  cut.  The  stock  yard  workers  rejected  the  company  union 
and  kept  their  own. 

Has  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  taken  the  side 
of  the  employers  in  the  Open  Shop  fight? 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


67 


Yes.  In  the  case  of  Hitchman  Coal  and  Coke  Co.  the  U. 
S.  Supreme  Court  decided  that  the  United  Mine  Workers  could 
not  organize  the  workers  of  certain  mines  in  West  Virginia  be- 
cause the  miners  had  been  compeld  to  sign  a  contract  when  they 
started  to  work  never  to  join  a  labor  union.  Under  this  decision 
a  starving  man  who  has  no  other  place  to  work  and  who  signs 
a  non-union  contract  cannot  be  askt  to  join  a  labor  union.  The 
union  organizer  who  asks  him  to  join  the  union  may  be  put  in 
jail. 

Are  the  Open  Shop  leaders  justified  in  demanding  a  wage 
reduction  at  the  present  time? 

No.  More  than  half  of  the  American  w^orkers  are  now  earn- 
ing less  than  a  "minimum  of  comfort"  wage.  Millions  have  been 
unemployd  for  many  months.  To  reduce  wages  at  the  present 
time  means  starvation  and  crime. 

What  proof  is  there  that  American  workers  are  not  now 
receiving  a  living  wage? 

During  tlie  war  the  cost  of  living  incrcast  out  of  all  propor- 
tion to  the  increase  in  wages.  It  has  been  estimated  that  the 
cost  of  living  increast  40  percent  more  than  wages.  Before  the 
war  the  Industrial  Relations  Commission,  appointed  by  President 
Wilson  reported  that  one  third  to  one  half  of  the  American  work- 
ers receivd  less  than  a  living  wage.  With  the  increast  cost  of 
living  the  workers  were  poorer  today  relatively  than  they  were 
before  the  war.  The  present  depression  with  the  resulting  un- 
employment has  added  to  their  misery  a  hundred  fold. 

What  has  the  Catholic  Church  of  America  said  about  the 
Open  Shop  Movement? 

The  National  Catholic  Welfore  Council  thru  its  Social  Action 
Department  has  said : 

"The  'open  shop'  drive  of  certain  groups  of  American  em- 
ployers is  becoming  so  strong  that  it  threatens  not  only  the  welfare 
of  the  wage  earners,  but  the  whole  structure  of  industrial  peace 
and  order.  Employers  sometimes  favor  the  'open  shop'  because 
they  do  not  want  to  be  limited  in  the  employment  of  men  to  union 
members.  But  the  present  drive  is  not  of  that  kind.  The  evi- 
dence shows  that  in  its  organized  form  it  is  not  merely  against 
the  'closed  shop,'  but  against  unionism  itself  and  particularly 
against  collective  bargaining.  Of  what  avail  is  it  for  workers  to 
be  permitted  by  the  employers  to  become  members  of  unions  if 
the  employers  will  not  deal  with  the  unions?  The  workers  might 
as  well  join  golf  clubs  as  lal^or  unions  if  the  present  'open  shop' 
campaign  is  successful. 

"The  'open  ship'  drive  masks  under  such  names  as  'The  Ameri- 
can Plan'  and  hides  behind  the  pretense  of  American  freedom. 
^'ct  its  real  purpose  is  to  destroy  all  effective  labor  unions,  and 


68 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


thus  subject  the  working  people  to  the  complete  domination  of 
the  employers.  Should  it  succeed  in  the  measure  that  its  pro- 
ponents hope  it  will  thrust  far  into  the  ranks  of  the  underpaid 
the  body  of  American  working  people.    .  . 

"The  unions  were  necessary  even  during  the  war  when  work- 
ing people  found  their  labor  in  great  demand.  They  are  still  more 
imperative  now,  and  they  must  keep  their  strength  and  grow. 
Otherwise  we  shall  see  a  repetition  of  the  old  bad  days  when  the 
workers  were  utterly  dependent  upon  their  employers." 

l)ishop  J.  Henry  Tihen,  Catholic  Bishop  of  Denver  in  address- 
ing the  Knights  of  Columbus  at  Colorado  Springs  said: 

'"So  surely  as  capital  succeeds  in  forcing  the  open  shop  upon 
labor  and  w'ping  out  the  unions,  so  surely  will  slavery  have  returnd 
to  our  land.  It  wi'l  mean  just  that,  slavery.  They  are  honest  in 
their  l)eliets,  perhaps — the  employers;  but  the  slave-holder  of  other 
days  was  honest  in  his  belief  that  the  Negro  v/ould  be  far  worse 
off  if  freed  of  his  bondage.  But  right  arose  and  struck'  down 
slavery." 

What  have  the  Protestant  Churches  of  America  said  about 
the  Open  Shop  Movement? 

The  Commission  of  the  Church  and  Social  Service  of  the  Fed- 
eral Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America,  representing 
v31  Protestant  flenominations  and  19,500,000  church  members,  has 
issued  the  following  statement  concerning  the  Open  Shop  Move- 
ment : 

"Tbe  relations  between  employers  and  workers  thruput  the 
United  States  arc  seriously  affected  at  this  moment  by  a  cam- 
paign which  is  l)eing  conducted  for  the  'open  shop'  policy — the  so- 
called  'Aivcrican  Plan'  of  employment,  the  terms  now  being  fre- 
quent!} U'\:(l  lo  designate  establishments  that  are  definitely  anti- 
union. (J'n  iously  a  sliop  of  ■  this  kind  is  not  an  'open  shop'  but 
a  'closed  ;  h()|)'--Ci(:)Sicl  against  meml:iers  of  labor  unions. 

"We  feel  impeld  to  call  puljlic  attcnfon  to  the  fact  tliat  a 
very  wide.s])read  impression  exists  that  the  present  'open  sn'»p' 
campaign  is  inspired  in  n^any  quarters  by  this  antagonism  to  union 
lalxtr.  M;iny  disinterested  ])ersons  are  convinced  that  an  attem))t 
is  being  nracle  to  destroy  the  organized  labor  movement.  Any  such 
attempt  must  lie  \icw(l  Vv'ith  apprehension  by  fair-minded  peopb.\" 

What  has  the  N.  Y.  World  said  about  the  Open  Shop 
Movement? 

The  New  York  Wor'd  in  an  editorial  has  said: 
"An  organized  and  well-financed  open  shop  campaign  can 
create  a  great  d.al  of  industrial  trouljle  in  the  United  States  and 
add  inin.Hasni aijly  to  the  difficulties  of  reconstruction,  but  it  will 
never  succeed  except  b}-  wrecking  the  industrial  fabric  of  tlio 
oun.try,  !;ecause  there  is  no  real  honesty  and  sincerity  back  of 
it.  Inhere  is  nothing  liack  of  it  but  greed  and  sordidness,  and  m 
tiie  li.ng  run  j^reed  and  sordidness  cannot  dictate  the  economic 
]:)olic;es  (;i    tlie  Anv.ricLin  i_)eop'e." 

How  does  the  Open  Shop  Movement  destroy  Americanism? 


THE  OPEN  SHOP  69 

1.  By  destroying  the  Anierican  standard  of  living. 

2.  By  denying  to  workers  the  constitutional  rights  of  free 
speech,  free  press,  and  free  assemblage. 

3.  By  preventing  progress  toward  American  democracy  in 
industry.  American  democracy  means  government  by  the  0:1- 
sent  of  the  governd,  by  the  Open  Shop  Movement  means  tiie 
government  of  American  business  by  private  interests  for  thc.r 
ovvn  profit. 

How  can  organized  labor  defeat  the  Open  Shop  Movement? 

By  a  general  campaign  for  education  and  organization,  l;y 
close  co-operation  among  the  existing  unions,  and  by  the  building 
up  of  industrial  unions  which  include  all  the  workers  in  an  in- 
dustry. 

The  movement  for  worker's  education  is  spreading  rapldlv 
ihruout  the  United  States.  Labor  colleges,  and  forums  have  i  cen 
establisht  in  New  York,  Boston,  Baltimore,  Springfield,  Wash- 
ington, Rochester,  Harrisl)urg,  Reading  and  many  other  cities. 
The  workers  are  beginning  to  see  that  they  must  know  something 
about  social  and  industrial  problems  before  they  can  fight  tiie 
emp^iyers  effectively. 

Have  unions  in  the  past  workt  together  effectively  in 
fighting  the  Open  Shop  Movement? 

No.  They  have  often  been  dixidcd  and  weakend  by  pe^iy 
jurisdictional  disputes,  the  jealousy  of  local  and  international  offi- 
cers and  indifference  to  the  great  mass  of  unskilld  workers. 
Craft  unions  in  the  same  industry  have  spent  much  of  their  energy 
in  fighting  each  other. 

The  Interchurch  World  Movement  in  its  report  on  the  Great 
Steel  Strike  declared  that  one  of  the  most  important  reasons  for 
the  failure  of  the  strike  was  the  lack  of  co-operation  among  the 
twenty-four  in.ternational  unions  which  took  part  in  the  strike. 
The  situation  demanded  one  union  of  steel  workers,  co-operating 
directly  with  the  railroad  workers. 

What  have  been  the  most  effective  weapons  for  fighting  the 
Open  Shop  Movement  in  the  past? 

1.  The  100  percent  union  shop  l)ackt  by  a  spiritually  an  l 
financially  sound  labor  organization. 

2.  Industrial  unions  which  include  all  the  workers  in  the 
industry. 

3.  Co-operation  in  making  the  trade  agreements  to  include 
all  the  workers  in  all  the  crafts  in  the  industry. 

The  United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  -which  is  the  largest 
and  most  powerful  union  in  America  is  an  industrial  union  in- 


70  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


eluding  all  workers  engaged  in  mining. 

Walter  Drew,  leader  of  the  Open  Shop  Movement  in  :;]ie 
huilding  trades  has  confcst  that  the  strongest  weapon  the  huild- 
ing  trades  unions  have  is  the  sympathetic  strike.  He  declared  be- 
fore the  employers  of  Rochester,  "If  you  builders  could  eliminate 
the  sympatheic  strike  from  the  building  industry,  you  would  have 
gone  ninety-nine  one-hundredths  of  the  way  toward  solving  the 
problems  of  the  industry". 

What  does  American  labor  want  as  a  substitute  for  the 
Open  Shop? 

The  union  shop  because  it  guarantees — 

1.  A  living  wage. 

2.  Protection  against  unjust  discharge. 

3.  Hours  for  rest  and  play. 

4.  Equal  division  of  work  during  times  of  unemployment. 

5.  Self  respect. 

In  our  industrial  system  the  workers  are  always  on  the  de- 
fensive. The  employers  own  the  jobs  and  the  tools.  They  have 
an  overwhelming  advantage  in  bargaining  with  the  workers.  The 
worker  must  fight  to  get  his  job  at  a  living  wage  and  then  fight 
to  hold  it.  In  that  constant  battle  the  labor  army  must  be  solidly 
organized,  if  necessary  by  conscription.  Every  able  bodied  worker 
must  carry  his  share  of  the  burden.  An  army  which  is  fighting 
on  the  defensive  cannot  afford  to  have  in  its  ranks  any  slackers 
or  spies.  That  is  why  labor  demands  the  100  percent  union  shop. 
That  is  why  the  workers  say,  "We  will _  not  work  with  anyone  who 
is  disloyal  to  our  cause." 

WHAT  IS  YOUR  ANSWER? 

You  belong  to  the  working  class.  It  is  the  only  class  worth 
belonging  to. 

You  produce  the  good  things  of  life  but  you  do  not  often 
share  in  those  things  because  you  have  not  learnd  to  organize  as 
well  as  your  masters.  Your  masters  have  not  only  learnd  to 
organize  themselves.  They  have  learnd  to  organize  you.  They 
have  learnd  to  organize  you  for  their  own  purposes. 

They  organize  you  for  war  and  you  marcht  away  to  the 
music  of  bands  and  the  shouts  of  the  multitude  ...  to  die 
for  "democracy."  Those  of  you  who  came  back  found  that  the 
employers  had  made  prodigious  profits  while  you  were  away. 

Now  the  employers  are  trying  to  organize  you  for  "American- 
ism." The  employers  wanted  you  to  fight  for  what  they  falsely  call 
Americanism.    They    wanted    you  to  fight  for  democracy  in  Eu- 


THE  OPEN  SHOP  71 

rope,  but  they  do  not  want  it  for  American  industry. 

When  will  you  learn  to  organize  yourselves?  Vou  are  the 
Americans.  You  make  America  all  that  she  is.  You  build  the 
railroads,  operate  the  mines,  make  the  clothes  .  .  fight  the  wars. 
And  now  the  employers  tell  you  that  you  cannot  control  your 
own  working  conditions  thru  your  own  unions. 

WHAT  IS  YOUR  ANSWER? 

OPEN  SHOP  TO  DESTROY  TRADE  UNIONS 

From  a  conference  of  109  international  labor  unions,  held 
in  Washington  about  the  first  of  March,  1921,  which  was  presided 
over  by  Samuel  Gompers,  President  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  the  following  statement  is  reported  to  have  l)ccn  issued, 
referring  to  the  open  shop  campaign  : 

Reactionary  employers  have  joind  their  might  in  a  campaign 
which  they  are  pleasd  to  call  a  campaign  for  the  "open  shop"  which 
they  have  been  waging  vigorousl-y  since  the  signing  of  the  Armis- 
tice. Compeld  by  pressure  of  public  opinion  to  accept  labor's  co- 
operation during  the  war  when  the  utmost  conservation  of  pro- 
ductive energy  was  necessary  to  the  life  of  the  nation,  they  cast 
off  all  pretense  immediately  upon  the  passing  of  the  emergency. 
This  entire  campaign  on  the  part  of  the  comlnned  reactionary 
employers  is  in  no  sense  a  campaign  for  the  "open  shop."  No 
niatter  what  definition  may  be  given  to  that  term,  the  campaign 
is  distinctly  and  solely  one  for  a  shop  that  shall  be  closed  against 
union  workmen.  It  is  primarily  a  campaign  disguised  under  the 
name  of  an  "open  shop"  campaign  designd  to  destroy  trade  unions 
and  to  break  dovv'U  and  eliminate  the  whole  principle  of  collective 
bargaining  which  has  for  years  been  accepted  by  the  highest  in- 
dustrial authorities  and  by  the  American  people  as  a  principle 
based  upon  justice  and  establisht  permanently  in  our  industrial 
life. 

TWELVE-HOUR  DAY— SEVEN-DAY  WEEK 

One  of  the  serious  evils  often  pointed  out  as  likely  to  attend 
the  maintenance  of  the  "open  shop"  is  inordinately  long  working 
hours.  This  is  particularly  con^plaind  of  in  the  Steel  Ivcport  of 
the  Commission  of  the  Interchurch  World  Alovemcnt.  It  is 
maintaind  that  only  tlie  open  shop  policy  of  the  United  States  Steel 
corporation  could  have  permitted  this  industrial  anachronism  to 
persist.  A  large  proportion  of  the  workmen  employd  by  the  Steel 
Corporation  are  shown  to  '  work  on  a  twelve-hour  shift  and  a 
seven-day  schedule. 

The  evils  of  this  system  are  graphically  treated  in  the  SUR- 
VEY for  March  5,  1921,  the  major  portion  of  the  issue  being 
devoted  to  "The  Long  Day  and  the  Way  Out."  Three  working 
shifts  for  the  twenty-four  hour  day  are  advocated.    Debaters  who 


72 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


into  this  phase  of  the  general  question  should  not  fail  to  con- 
sult this  treatment,  presenting  "Results  of  Investigations  Carrid 
Out  for  the  Cabot  Fund  into  the  Excessive  Hours  of  Lal)or  in  the 
Continuous  Processes  in  Steel,  Their  Human  Consequences  and  the 
Forces  for  Change." 

Replying  to  this  charge  against  the  Steel  Corporation  and  its 
open  shop  policy,  Elbert  H.  Gary,  the  executive  head  of  the  Cor- 
poration, and  others,  maintain  that  attempts  have  been  made  to 
eliminate  this  admitted  evil,  but  that  the  workmen  themselves  in- 
sist upon  this  schedule,  since  it  insures  larger  wage  returns.  On 
the  contrary  part,  this  discussion  in  the  SURVEY  states  that 
"manufacturers  now  operating  on  the  shorter  shift  are  a  unit  in 
saying  it  means  more  satisfactory  operations  and  is  better  business. 
*  *  *  As  for  the  workers,  testimony  all  along  the  line  of  the 
three-shift  plants  tends  to  show  that  these  plants  have  drawn  to 
them  American  men  of  stability.  There  have  been  few  complaints 
at  the  smaller  pay  envelopes  and  where  one  department  of  a  plant 
has  gone  on  three  shifts,  the  general  tendency  has  been  for  the 
workers  in  the  other  departments  to  want  to  follow  suit.  'After 
the  men  have  got  used  to  the  system,  you  could  not  pull  it  away 
from  them  with  tongs.'" 

UNEMPLOYMENT  AND  CLOSED  SHOP  IN  COHOES 

Cohoes,  New  York,  is  one  of  the  group  of  cities  devoted 
largely  to  the  textile  industry,  especiaMy  the  manufacture  of  collars 
and  shirts,  originating  in  Troy,  Nev/  York.  Troy  also  became 
a  center  for  the  manufacture  of  laundry  machinery  and  equipment, 
which  gave  rise  to  the  name  "Troy  Laundry"  applied  to  laundries 
using  steam  and  machinery  in  many  towns  all  over  the  United 
States. 

The  recent  situation  in  Cohoes  and  adjacent  manufacturing 
centers  is  set  forth  in  the  NATION,  March  30,  1921,  in  an  article 
headed  with  the  title  used  above,  by  Cedric  Long,  field  secretary 
of  the  New  York  State  Consumers'  League.  The  paragraphs  lie- 
low  are  a  part  of  the  contents  of  two  pages  of  the  magazine. 

Recently  the  manufacturers,  textile  and  others,  in  the  cities 
of  Troy,  Cohoes,  and  Water  ford  have  united  in  a  Tri-Cuy  Manu- 
facturers' Association  for  tlie  more  effective  waging  of  their 
open  shop  campaign.  Their  secretary  is  a  man  who  revels  in 
unemploymicnt  and  union-i)a:ting.  When  he  left  the  Poughkeepsie 
Manufacturers'  Association  office  to  take  up  work  in  Cohoes,  the 
labor  body  of  that  city  gave  him  a  send-off  in  the  form  of  a  little 
pamphlet  especially  devoted  to  the  exposure  of  his  union-break- 
;i]g  mctriods  and  to  warn  Cohoes  unionists  against  him. 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


73 


To  date  h:s  open  shop  campaign  is  highly  successful.  The 
textile  workers  have  no  fighting  power  whatever.  Troy  collar 
workers  have  never  been  successfully  organized,  any  way.  At 
present  this  iManufacturers'  Associaiion  is  conducting  a  fight 
against  two  or  three  sn-.aller  miscellaneous  industries  which  are  on 
st^r.ke  —  the  millions  of  dollars  of  the  Manufacturers'  Associa- 
tion pitted  against  the  staying  power  of  a  few  score  workers. 
Newspapers  report  that  one  factory  is  patro'd  by  State  Guards, 
each  guard  accompanied  by  a  police  dog.  And  meanwhile  there 
arc  thousands  of  unemployd  walking  the  streets  of  these  citi-:s. 
any  one  of  whom  may  have  a  job  in  these  factories  by  applying 
to  the  Tri-City  Manufacturers'  employment  bureau. 

This  secretary  informd  me  that  his  office  was  a  "clearing 
house  for  information"  about  workers  (the  union  leaders  already 
know  it  for  a  black-list  office).  1  askt  about  discrimination. 
"We  don't  object  to  unions,  but  of  course  none  of  our  members 
would  hire  a  m.an  who  has  betn  agitating  and  getting  his  name  in 
the  papers  and  that  sort  of  thing."  I  thought  of  the  Association 
of  Textile  Manufacturers  in  Passaic  and  their  "employment  of- 
fice," which  is  today  the  center  for  a  vast  network  of  espionage 
covering  the  entire  city  and  environs  and  costing  thousands  of 
dollars  a  month.  The  Tri-City  Manufacturers'  Association  is  still 
young.  In  time  it  will  doubtless  develop  the  effectiveness  of  sirni- 
iar  organizations  in  Passaic.  Duquesne,  Pennsylvania,  and  the  Vir- 
ginia coal  fields.  It  has  not  yet  begun  wholesale  espionage  simply 
because  it  has  not  met  the  resistance  which  warrants  such  exten- 
sive methods.  Up-state  labor  is  extremely  conservative ;  unemploy- 
ment is  prevalent.  The  (opening  nf  this  office  under  such  circum- 
stances is  a  com.pliment. 

A  22  1-2  percent  cut  in  wages  is  scheduled  for  all  mills  upon 
resumption  of  work.  Open  shop  is  also  on  the  schedule,  of  course. 
Huge  bills  to  the  grocer,  the  coal  dealer,  the  landlord  haunt  many 
of  the  workers  night  and  day.  While  they  look  ahead  to  all  this 
they  are  wandering  about  in  a  city  of  mean,  small  tenements,  no 
recreation  except  the  cheap  movies,  dirty  streets,  bleak  winds,  and 
a  pervasive  atmosphere  of  pessimism  and  gloom.  Of  the  7,503 
wage  earners  in  the  city,  one  third  have  been  idle  since  last  sum- 
mer, approximately  two-thirds  since  autumn,  yet  the  Polish,  Rus- 
sian and  Italian  populations  have  devised  methods  of  saving  money. 

*  *  *  He  (the  worker)  never  philosophized  much  about 
capital  and  labor ;  he  was  willing  to  be  patronized  a  good  deal  by 
his  boss,  and  he  thought  of  a  "class  war"  only  as  a  mental  con- 
coction of  anarchists.  But  he  now  has  a  developing  hatred  of 
certain  vague  forces  which  conspire  to  push  him  back  to  where 
he  was  ten  years  ago.  The  press,  some  of  his  friends,  the  churches, 
all  tell  him  that  he,  with  his  union,  caused  this  trouble.  The  movies 
and  the  school  teacher  repeat  the  charge  to  his  children.  Are  they 
right?  He  joins  a  few  of  his  fellow  unionists  for  long  talks  in 
the  union  hall  and  together  they  try  to  untangle  the  great  puzzle. 

Meanwhile,  the  manufacturers,  some  and.  perhaps  all  of  the 
ministers  and  priests,  the  l:)ankers.  m.any  of  the  m.erchants,  are  happy 
and   comfortable.     Optimism  prevails  thruout  the  center  of  the 


74 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


cit}'.  Wages  are  back  to  normal,  the  open  shop  is  an  accompHsht 
fact,  the  old  "rights"  are  restored,  labor  domination  is  ended. 
What  lookt  to  the  manufacturers  like  a  tremendous  financial  crisis 
turns  out  to  be  an  unemployment  Godsend.  One  druggist  says  the 
people  are  quite  comfortable  and  affirms  that  he  is  losing  no 
business.  "I  am  cutting  prices  on  goods,  doing  five  times  normal 
business,  and  making  at  least  30  percent  profit  on  everything." 
Furthermore,  the  machinery  for  maintaining  normal  labor  condi- 
ions  is  now  estalilisht  and  running  smoothly.  If  labor  becomes 
fractious,  a  little  lubrication  and  careful  manipulation  of  this  ma- 
chinery will  render  it  as  cffecti\e  as  that  in  Passaic  or  Lawrence  or 
Bethkhem.  For  the  black  kst  leads  to  undercover  work,  provoca- 
tion, and  possible  violence  as  ine vitality  as  armament  on  the  part  of 
competitor  nations  leads  to  war.  The  manufacturers,  to  be  sure, 
are  blind  to  the  future;  sufficient  unto  today  is  the  knowledge  that 
uncmi)loyment  has  brought  them  the  Open  Shop. 

*       *  * 

THE  INDIVIDUAL'S  "RIGHT  TO  WORK" 

The  article  reproduced  in  full  below  is  a  sarcastic  coiiir.ient 
upon  the  "creed"  of  the  Manufacturers'  Associations.  The  Fr. ■ 
cyclopedia  issued  liy  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers, 
which  each  del;atcr  b.as  Ijc^n  urged  to  secure,  more  ful'y  sets 
forth  this  "creed,"  and  presents  accur;iteiy  the  Manufacturers'  point 
of  ^  icw. 

Tlie  "aiuh.ology"  refcrd  to  as  publisht  on  another  page  of  *he 
same  issue  of  the  New^  Rcpuljlic,  is  an  article  prepard  by  Mr.  /i;ri- 
and,  who  is  the  compiler  of  the  pamphlet  issued  by  the  Bureau  of 
Industrial  Research,  which  you  have  also  been  urged  to  jecure. 
The  article  by  Mr.  Zimand  is  a  summary  of  much  of  the  material 
contained  in  :he  pamphlet  by  him. 

The  art'cle  reprinted  from  the  NEW  REPUBLIC  here  appears 
under  the  title  "The  Moon  Calf  at  Large." 

THE  MOON  CALF  AT  LARGE 
From  The  New  Republic— Jan.  26,  192 L    PP.  243-4 

On  another  page  (255)  we  publish  a  brief  anthology  of  the 
Open  Shop  Movement.  One  theme  runs  thru  all  of  it,  that,  in  the 
words  of  the  National  Conference  of  State  Manufacturers'  Asso- 
ciation, all  people  "have  the  right  to  work  velun  tliey  please,  for 
vv'hom  they  please,  and  on  vv'hatevcr  terms  are  mutually  agreed 
upon  between  employe  and  employer."  These  are  noble  words. 
They  evoke  a  sense  of  freedom  that  is  not  only  idealistic  but 
idyllic;  they  suggest  a  Golden  Age  in  which  compulsion  and  con- 
trol, and  the  whole  horrid  apparatus  of  social  organization,  have 
disappeard,  and  nothing  remains  but  the  right  to  follow  the  fancy 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


75 


where  it  listeth.  In  short,  the  formula  of  the  manufacturers'  asso- 
ciation is  the  doctrine  of  philosophical  anarchy  in  its  purest  and 
most  absolute  form.  It  presupposes  a  society  of  unlimited  rights 
exercised  without  hir/lrance  by  the  standard  of  individual  plea- 
sure. 

The  poet  who  conceivd  this  Utopia  of  the  free  was  naturally 
not  enslaved  by  the  facts  of  life.  Indeed  he  was  not  thinking 
of  the  world  as  it  is,  but  the  world  as  in  the  millenium  it  ought 
to  be.  Now  it  is  no  task  of  ours  to  discourage  the  brave  excite- 
ments of  youth.  These  challenges  to  the  social  order,  however 
reckless  or  immature,  must  be  tolerated,  in  the  confident  hope  that 
experience  of  life,  a  knowledge  of  the  world,  contact  with  prac- 
tical affairs  will  gradually  teach  these  mooncalves  the  sober  and 
more  prosaic  truth.  For  of  course  any  one  who  talks  about  the 
right  to  work  when  he  pleases,  for  whom  he  pleases,  is  a  moon- 
calf, even  tho  he  happens  to  be  the  hired  publicity  man  of  so 
respectable  a  crowd  as  the  manufacturer?'  association  of  twenty- 
two  states. 

Let  us  iniaginc  his  Utopia  in  action.  John  Smith,  it  happens, 
is  pleased  one  fine  morning  to  take  a  jol).  It  occurs  to  him  that 
he  wouM  rather  enjoy  driving  the  Twentieth  Century  Limited. 
So  he  walks  into  the  office  of  the  President  of  the  New  ^'ork 
Central  railroad  and  says:  "It  pleases  me  to  work  for  you  this 
m.orning.  The  train  to  be  sure  docs  not  ordinarily  start  until 
2:45  but  I'll  start  now.  I  work  wlun  I  please."  "Right  you  are," 
says  the  president,  "iet  us  mutually  agree  on  terms.  What'U  you 
take  for  the  jol)?"  "Well,"  says  John  Smith,  "Chicago  does  not 
interest  me  much,  but  1  shall  enjoy  the  ride.  Let's  make  it  an 
even  twenty."  "Too  much,"  says  the  president.  "I  generally  pay 
about  ten."  "Hm,"  says  John  Smith,  "I  tell  you.  Let's  split  the 
difference."  "Fine,"  says  the  president,  in  our  country  it  is 
recognized  as  fundamental  that  we  work  when  we  please,  for 
whom  we  please,  and  on  whatever  terms  are  mutually  agreed 
upon.  .  .  Vou  say  you  will  start  at  once?"  "Almost  at  once," 
says  John.  "I've  got  just  thirty  pages  of  the  Age  of  Innocence  to 
finish,  and  a  luncheon  engagement  at  the  Union  League  Club  to 
call  off  ;  I'll  be  ready  around  eleven." 

Having  stopt  for  a  shave  and  a  shine,  John  did  not  actually 
start  until  twelve-thirty.  As  the  train  sped  up  the  Hudson  Valley 
he  drank  in  the  air  and  thought  that  except  in  a  Veronese  at  the 
Pitti  and  in  two  bits  of  early  Ming  that  he  had  so  loved  when 
he  was  staying  at  Albermarle  House  with  Margot  and  Colonel 


76 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


Repington,  he  had  never  seen  such  a  celestial  1>ue.  Colonel 
Repington  suddenly  reminded  him  of  lunch,  and  at  Pough- 
keepsie  he  stopt,  calld  up  Franklin  Roosevelt,  and  was  wexomd 
with  open  arms.  Mrs.  Stratton  was  perfectly  enchanting,  and  ahout 
five  o'clock,  lunch  heing  over,  John  strolld  down  to  the  train, 
slowly  fin'shing  his  excellent  cigar.  Towards  seven  he  pulld  into 
Alhany,  and  took  a  cab  to  the  Ten  Eyck,  where  he  thought  he  would 
change  for  dinner.  .V  tclei'iam  from  the  perspicacious  president 
was  brouglit  to  him.  It  read:  "Forgive  the  unwarranted  intrusion 
upon  your  private  affairs.  A  harsh  and  meddlesome  government 
lias  !iLi.n  inquiring  all  afternoon  v/hen  the  mails  are  likely  to  reach 
(  l.icaji*.  1  r.aiize  that  you  work  only  when  yon  please  and  for 
wlM'n  }-ou  please,  but  as  one  man  to  another,  wm't  you  advise  mc 
of  _\our  plans." 

John  thought  this  over  for  an  hour  or  tv.-o,  reflecting  sadly 
(11  llic  increasing  restriction  of  lil:)erty  due  to  the  influence  of 
Aioicow,  asked  himself  whether  President  Harding  was  Ijy  any 
cliance  infected  witli  Bolslievism,  and  wonderd  whether  to  ring 
up  Ralph  Easley.  tlie  American  Defense  Society,  or  the  Imperial 
\\'i:<ard  of  the  Ru  Khix  Klan.  On  sol^r  second  tliought  he  felt 
ibiat  lie  bad  Ij^tter  decide  the  question  in  the  morning,  when  he  was 
fresh  from  a  good  night's  sleep.  So  h.e  turned  in,  renewed  his 
shaken  spirits  by  reading  a  fe\v  r.-^(;nani  i)assages  from  the  Weekly 
Ivevievv.  and  feil  asleep,  on'y  to  find  lumself  in  tb.e  midst  of  the 
wibli  St  and  most  liideous  niglitmare.        '  * 

As  is  usual  in  such  drcam.^.  srn-iic  feaiures  of  the  previous  day's 
vXiJiT^cnce  v;ere  reproduced,  llv  ugbi  tbs'.ortcd.  He  went  in  search 
of  a  joi).  But  instead  of  finding  liis  enn)b)v-or,  tlie  Presiilent,  he 
was  sliunted  from  porter-  !-  i''-Vt  [  ,   -^,-,(1  from  ticket  agents 

to  employment  offict  '  b'l-g  b'ne  of  wa-iting 

no  n.    ]^;n;iM\'  In'  v--  ■  ,  ;  nn  tlie  I'wnniietb 

\  c  Vs.  n;  laughter 

;  .n  nas  n^nl  uiaL  iie  Cv^/uiu  tiy  o,u  lis^  ;-cc'nid  as.>istant  lielpcr 
i-'i  ihe  local  freight  l)ctwecn  Jcricb.o  and  Mineokn  He  would 
rep.  .ri  at  6  a.  m.  The  w?'.v^  were  $4.32.  What,  he  didn't  like 
l!)i>?  He  wanted  to  work  wii^n  be  n'casd,  for  vvliom  he  pleasd.  on 
tuTns  mutuali\-  agreed  n.nm!?  He  was  welcome  to  try  somewhere 
else.  This  was  a  free  eo.unlry.  to  l)e  sure,  but  not  for  nuts.  In 
tile  futile  an.d  exaspc  rai  byn  n^a'nn  r  '>f  dreams,  he  repeated  all  this 
several  times,  b.ing  shunted  ;d)oin,.  standing  in  line,  being  told  to 
take  it  or  leave  it,  never  (  nce  encountering  a  believer  in  the  Open 
Shop,     And  just  as  he  was  trying  to  agree  upon  something  with 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


77 


Mr.  Gary,  he  woke  up  with  a  start,  pincht  himself,  and  thankt 
heaven  that  it  was  only  a  nightmare. 

Whether  John's  experience  or  John's  nightmare  is  nearer 
the  facts  as  they  exist  in  1921,  we  do  not  commit  ourselves  for 
fear  of  seeming  to  disagree  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
(ircat  Crusade.  But  on  the  off  chance  that  John's  night;"arc 
miglit  conceivably  he  true  in  two  or  three  h-ackv/ard  spots,  we  ven- 
ture to  set  down  a  few  beliefs  about  so  distressing  a  condition. 
If  wc  are  wrong,  if  in  this  country,  but  for  the  trade  unions,  men 
have  a  right  to  work  for  whom  they  please,  when  they  p'ease.  on 
terms  mutually  agreed  upon,  then  nothing  which  follows  is  worth  con- 
sidering. For  what  follows  departs  from  the  view  of  the  Open  Shop 
enthusiasts  only  in  this,  that  it  considers  not  whether  the  "rights" 
exist,  but  whether  any  one  can  today  exerci.^c  thtm.  It  assumes 
in  other  v/ords  that  a  right  on  which  men  cannot  act  is  as  valual)lc 
as  property  on  the  moon. 

Those  who  are  faint-hearted  about  the  Open  Shop  Move- 
n:cnt  believe  that  the  staiidards  of  cmi)loymcnt,  of  d^sc'pline.  of 
production,  of  pay,  and  of  hours  are  no  longer  matters  of  in- 
dividual fancy,  but  have  to  lie  fixt  f<jr  v.-hole  industries.  The}-, 
therefore,  inquire  who  is  to  fix  them,  and  tliey  believe  that  the 
real  meaning  of  what  is  calld  the  Open  Shop  i^  the  desire  of  the 
employer  to  fix  them  without  consulting  the  men  who  are  hired, 
are  disc:plind,  do  the  manual-  work,  receive  the  pay  envelope,  and 
puncli  the  time  clock.  They  arc  inclined  to  regard  tlie  phrases 
about  the  right  to  work  wIkii  you  please,  for  whom  you  please, 
on  term.s  mutually  agreed  upon  between  employer  and  em])loye  as 
an  inaccurate,  nay  "highfalutin,"  description  of  what  these  manu- 
factufers'  associations  are  after.  They  come  to  the  basic  fact  thai 
standards  Jiave  to  be  fixt  by  somebody.  For  a  completely  un- 
standardized  industry  is  a  sweatshop;  a  completely  standardized 
industry,  like  steel,  v/hcre  the  standards  are  fixt  entirely  by  the 
employer  is  *  *  well,  what  is  it?  It  is  an  industry  where 
revolt  is  an  institution.  Therefore,  the  critics  of  the  Open  Shop 
argue  that  the  standards  of  an  industry  shall  be  fixt  by  agree- 
ment between  an  association  of  the  workers  and  the  organized 
employers.  Apart  from  all  considerations  of  human  dignity,  eeiuality 
of  bargaining  power,  or  such  things  as  justice  and  democracy, 
admittedly  rather  vague,  they  argue  that  a  standard  so  fixt  has 
an  authority  that  it  is  not  possible  to  achieve  any  other  way.  For 
it  has  the  co!lecti\e  authority  of  the  workers  and  of  the  whole  in- 
dustry behind  it. 


78  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 

The  evils  of  the  closed  union  shops  are  manifest  enough,  and 
they  do  not  argue  for  it.  They  argue  for  an  open  union,  open  to 
a'.l  qualified  workers  without  discrimination,  associated  with  the 
organized  employers  to  fix  standards  of  work,  and  with  an  im- 
partial machinery  to  decide  individual  cases  on  the  basis  of  the 
standards  agreed  upon.  They  assert  that  this  is  the  only  form 
of  open  shop  adapted  to  modern  industry.  They  claim  that  ex- 
perience demonstrates,  and  that  events  will  prove  that  the  moon- 
calf conception  of  the  open  shop  is  as  unworkable  as  every  other 
kind  of  social  anarchy. 


GENERAL  DISCUSSIONS 


GENERAL    PUBLIC    SENTIMENT    AND    THE  OPEN- 
CLOSED-SHOP  CONTROVERSY 

A  vast  proportion  of  the  literature  dealing  with  the  open 
or  closed  shop  question  is  propaganda  material.  Individuals  or  in- 
stitutions having  a  personal  or  other  direct  interest  at  stake  enter 
the  lists  for  or  against  one  side  or  the  other.  Where  such  bias 
of  judgment  is  not  direct,  it  is  often  indirect,  and  its  influence  can- 
not be  traced;  it  is  sometimes  more  or  less  unconscious  on  the 
part  of  the  pleader  himself. 

Aside  from  the  organs  of  particular  interests  the  periodical 
pul)lications  which  show  the  liveliest  interest  in  our  question  are 
perhaps  the  weekly  journals  of  opinion  devoted  to  comment  on 
current  events.  The  independent  daily  papers  also  discuss  the 
question  vigorously  in  their  editorial  and  news  columns  when- 
ever a  particular  event  of  the  day  l)rings  it  to  the  front.  And 
many  events  during  the  past  two  or  three  years  have  servd  to  call 
forth  such  comment. 

Few  of  these  comments  go  far  in  discussing  the  fundamental 
question  on  its  merits.  They  rather  express  a  judgment  as  to 
whether  this  particular  employer  is  justified  in  his  policy,  or  that 
other  labor  leader  and  his  union  are  in  the  right  on  the  immediate 
issue.  Our  debaters  are  mainly  concernd  with  fundamental  con- 
siderations, and  clear-thinking  requires  that  a  great  amount  of 
controversial  chaff  be  sifted  to  find  the  grain  of  truth  and  social 
value. 

It  is  impossible  in  our  bulletin  to  reprint  many  of  the  com- 
ments from  the  daily  press.  The  most  w^idely  read  and  trusted 
epitome  of  this  sentiment  is  that  of  the  LITERARY  DIGEST. 
Most  debaters  have  access  to  a  file  of  this  weekly  publication.  It  is 
well  to  consult  this  file  for  a  year  or  more  back.  For  the  sake  of 
those  who  cannot  consult  these  files,  and  as  ir.ustrative  of  the 
discussion  conducted  in  the  daily  press,  there  are  printed  here 
in  succession  the  reviews  published  in  three  different  num1)ers  of 
the  LITERARY  DIGEST,  those  for  January  1st,  January  8th. 
and  February  19th,  1921.  Accompanying  each  are  effective  news- 
paper cartoons,  which  you  ought  to  see  if  you  can,  and  which 
cannot  be  reproduced  here. 


80 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


The  i\ilu)\v:no  quotations  are  taken  from  the  LITERARY 
DIGEST  for  January  1st,  1921,  under  tlie  title,  "Opening  Guns  in 
the  Open  Shop  War."  The  Lockwood  Committee  referd  to  was 
investigating  ainises  in  tlie  l)uilding  and  housing  situation  in  New 
York.  Robert  P.  Brindell  is  the  labor  leader  and  representative 
of  the  unions  whio  was  trid  in  the  courts  and  convicted  of  su:h 
a])uses  of  his  povver  that  he  was  sent  to  the  penitentiary.  The 
Bethlehem  Steel  Company  is  second  only  in  size  and  influence  in 
the  steel  industry  to  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation.  The 
dominating  influence  in  it  is  Charles  M.  Schv/ab,  and  Elbert  H. 
Gar}-  is  at  the  head  of  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation. 

*       *  * 


OPENING  GUNS  IN  THE  OPEN  SHOP  WAR 
Literary  Digest— Jan.  1,  192L    PP.  12-13 

SHOTS  THAT  WILL  BE  HEARD— if  not  around  the 
world,  at  least  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land — 
have  been  fired  in  the  open  shop  war  which  has  been  looming  for 
months  and  whose  preliminaries  were  discust  in  these  columns 
a  few  weeks  ago.  The  fight  is  on  in  two  important  industries — 
steel  and  clothing.  After  all  the  revelations  brought  out  by  the 
Lockwood  Committee  in  New  York  of  extortion  and  blackmail 
by  labor  leaders  trying  to  force  the  closed  shop,  comes  the 
news  that  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Company  is  not  only  following 
the  open  shop  gospel  itself,  but  is  steadily  following  the  policy 
of  selling  no  steel  to  builders  who  will  not  adhere  to  the  open 
shop  principle.  In  the  men's  and  boys'  clothing  trade  em- 
ployers have  broken  with  the  union  in  New  York  and  Bos- 
ton; they  have  insisted  on  lower  wages,  the  piece-work  sys- 
tem, open  shop  conditions  and  greater  freedom  to  "hire  and  fire", 
and  they  have  issued  statements  accusing  the  unions  of  "Sov- 
ietism."  The  workers,  in  turn,  have  demanded  a  joint  survey 
of  wage-conditions  as  preliminary  to  any  readjustment,  and 
they  have  charged  the  manufacturers  with  "attempting  to  take 
advantage  of  existing  conditions  to  return  to  old  time  sweat- 
shop conditions".  Some  newspaper  writers  find  it  hard  to  de- 
cide whether  the  cessation  of  work  in  this  industry  is  a  strike 
or  a  lockout.  And  since  the  open  shop  is  here  but  one  of  several 
issues,  many  of  which  are  not  clearly  defined,  the  press  in  gen- 
eral prefer  to  await  further  developments  before  discussing  the 
precise  bearing  of  this  particular  labor  battle  upon  the  open 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


81 


shop  movement.  But  when  Eugene  G.  Grace,  president  of  the 
Bethleham  Steel  Company,  admits  on  the  witness-stand  that 
his  great  concern  has  for  months  been  forcing  customers  to  em- 
ploy non-union  labor  or  go  without  steel,  editors  generally  admit 
that  the  open  shop  war  is  on  in  earnest;  and  it  must  be  added 
that  to  a  remarkable  degree  they  seem  to  unite  in  declaring  that 
the  steel  company  has  gone  too  far. 

Air.  Grace's  admissions  were  brought  out  piecemeal  in  the 
course  of  a  long  examination  by  Samuel  Untermyer,  counsel  for 
the  Lockwood  Committee  and  incidentally  the  largest  indivi- 
dual stockholder  of  Bethleham  steel.  Mr.  Grace  made  a  point  of 
avoiding  definite  expressions  of  fact  or  opinion,  but  at  the  con- 
clusion of  the  examination,  so  the  New  York  World  sums  it  up, 
the  admission  had  been  forced  "that  he,  personally,  the 
Bethlehem's  Steel  Company,  the  Bethlehem's  subsidiaries, 
and  practically  all  the  steel  interests  of  the  country 
are  endeavoring  to  kill  oft  union  labor  and  to  create 
non-union  shops  if  human  ingenuity  can  do  it".  The  day  before, 
building  contractors  had  told  how  they  had  been  working  as 
"union"  organizations  and  found  themselves  unable  to  continue 
buying  steel  direct  from  the  fabricators.  They  testified  that 
their  personal  appeals  to  the  heads  of  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Com- 
pany were  in  vain,  that  they  were  given  to  understand  that  un- 
less they  continued  on  a  non-union  basis  they  could  get  no 
stce\  and  that  in  some  cases  they  were  compeld  to  (;pen 
shop  erectors  do  steel  work  for  them  at  a  considerable  increase 
in  cost.  .\n  "Iron  League"  has  l)eLn  formd  of  erectors  who 
hold  to  the  open  shop  policy,  and  according  to  these  wit- 
nesses, its  members  have  no  difficulty  whatsoever  in  getting 
steel  from  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  Bethlehem,  and 
other  large  fabricators.  Building  in  New  York  is  said  to  have 
been  made  more  costly  by  these  conditions  and  to  have  been 
held  up  seriously.  Moreover,  as  the  New  York  Times  sums  up 
part  of  this  testimony: — 

"Robert  P.  Brindell,  of  the  Building  Trades  Council,  bene- 
fited by  the  'open  shop'  war  of  the  steel  fabricators.  Since  the 
Iron  League  refused  to  permit  steel  to  be  put  up  except  under 
open  shop  conditions,  Brindell  was  able  to  threaten  strikes  on 
the  charge  that  non-union  men  were  doing  the  steel  work. 
In  this  way  he  levied  tribute  on  builders  for  permission  to  have 
the  steel  work  continue  to  go  up  under  open  shop  conditions". 

When  Mr.  Grace  was  asked  what  he  thought  of  the  situa- 
tion  created   by   the    Bethlehem   open    shop   policy   he   answerd : 


82  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


"I  think  it  is  the  proper  thing  to  protect  the  open  shop  prin- 
ciple." The  next  day  the  answering  shot  came  from  the  union- 
labor  ranks.  Samuel  Gompers  reminded  newly  elected  union 
officials  of  the  necessity  for  standing  loyally  by  the  labor  move- 
ment, particularly  at  a  time  "when  there  is  so  much  effort  made 
in  the  direction  of  reaction  and  the  destruction  of  the  labor 
movement,  when  the  challenge  has  been  thrown  to  labor  by 
employers  as  it  has  been  the  last  few  days.  American  labor  ac- 
cepts this  challenge". 

When  Mr.  Grace  says  that  "any  character  of  relations  or 
association  to  support  and  protect  the  open  shop  principle  of 
giving  service  by  any  character  of  laboring  man  in  this  country 
is  a  good  thing",  he  has  the  full  editorial  approval  of  the 
Buffalo  Commercial,  which  says: 

"It  is  just  as  unfair  to  condemn  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  for  refusing  to  sell  goods  to  the  Russian  Soviet 
Republic  as  to  condemn  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation 
and  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Company  for  declining  to  sell  fabricated 
steel  to  closed-shop  builders.  The  reasons  for  refusing  to 
enter  into  relations  with  the  Bolsheviki  are  exactly  the  same  as 
exist  in  the  steel  business.  The  Russian  'Reds'  have  been  trying 
to  spread  their  propaganda  throughout  this  country.  They  have 
been  instigating  revolutionary  movements  whercever  possible 
with  the  intention  of  undermining  and  blowing  up  our  democ- 
racy. A  year  ago  last  September,  union  labor  under  the  leader- 
ship of  Foster,  the  syndicalist,  and  Fitzpatrick,  the  Chicago  radi- 
cal, aided  and  abetted  by  the  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
sought  to  get  control  of  the  steel  industry  in  America  with  the 
view  of  ultimately  extending  their  power  over  every  industry 
that  uses  some  form  of  fabricated  steel  in  its  business.  The 
strike  that  was  then  organized  faild  through  the  active  and  in- 
telligent opposition  of  the  very  men  who  are  today  refusing  to 
give  organized  labor  a  chance  to  engineer  another  srike  for 
power. 

"The  vital  principle  that  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Company  is 
fighting  for  must  be  carried  on  exactly  as  it  is  being  done  today. 
The  time  for  temporizing  has  long  passed". 

But  such  unreserved  applause  is  conspicuous  by  its  rarity. 
Some  editors  are  careful  not  to  commit  themselves  too  deeply. 
The  New  York  Tribune,  for  instances,  calls  the  situation  "A 
Mutual  Lockout": 

"The  unions  will  not  sell  their  labor  to  concerns  empolying 
non-union  labor.  The  company  will  not  sell  its  steel  to  con- 
cerns which  deny  to  non-unionists  a  chance  to  get  jobs.  Boy- 
cott is  thus  met  with  boycott.  It  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible, 
to  condemn  the  one  side  without  condemning  the  other". 

The  Bethlehem  policy,  similarly  observes  the  New  York 


THE  OPEN  SHOP  83 

Commercial,  means  that  "what  is  sauce  for  the  goose  is  sauce 
for  the  gander".  "There  may  be  the  claim  of  right  behind 
Bethlehem  Steel's  attitude  in  refusing  to  provide  materials"  for 
closed  shop  contractors,  but,  adds  the  Commercial  carefully, 
"that  it  is  a  moral  right  will  not  be  universally  conceded." 

But  a  large  number  of  dailies,  many  of  them  conserva- 
tive, and  in  general  friendly  to  the  open  shop  principle,  are  con- 
vinced that  Mr.  Grace  is  going  altogelh*er  too  far.  Mr,  Grace 
is  "overvaluing  a  principle",  is  the  way  the  Buffalo  Express  puts 
it;  he  is  "fighting  minority  tyranny  with  despotism",  according 
to  the  Brooklyn  Eagle,  which  finds  "depotism  by  organized 
capital  as  reprehensible  as  minority  tyranny  by  organized 
labor".  The  Rochester  Democrat  and  Chronicle  contends  that 
there  is  no  more  justice  in  trying  to  force  the  open  shop  policy 
"on  concerns  that  prefer  to  employ  only  union  labor  than  there 
would  be  in  union-labor  leaders  trying  to  force  the  closed-shop 
principle  on  the  Bethlehe^n  Steel  plants".  Similar  observations 
come  from  the  Boston  Transcript,  the  Syracuse  Post-Standard, 
the  Newark  News,  and  the  Louisville  Courier-Journal.  The 
New  York  Journal  of  Commerce,  an  organ  of  business  and 
finance  admits  that — 

"Any  attempt  for  any  reason  on  the  part  of  steel  manu- 
facturers to  interfere  with  the  right  of  contractors  to  determine 
their  own  labor  policies  is  too  closely  similar  to  an  effort  on 
the  part  of  labor  in  the  building  or  other  trades  to  dictate  the 
labor  policy  of  the  steel  industry  to  appeal  to  the  impartial 
observer.  The  contractor  is  said  to  find  it  to  the  interest  of 
efficient  production  in  his  business  to  employ  union  labor  even 
if  in  so  doing  it  is  necessary  to  acquiesce  in  the  closed-shop 
principle.  If  this  is  the  case  it  is  desirable  both  from  the 
standpoint  of  abstract  right  and  of  public  interest  that  he  be 
free  to  do  so." 

It  seems  to  the  New  York  Globe  that  while  New-Yorkers 
may  be  properly  concernd  over  the  possil)ility  that  the  Bethle- 
hem policy  has  in  some  cases  "increast  the  cost  of  building  here 
by  from  5  to  10  per  cent",  there  is  a  much  more  significant  angle 
to  the  situation.  In  general,  says  The  Globe,  the  union  has  given 
labor  a  weapon  without  disarming  capital  and  has  thus  created 
a  balance  of  power,  and  it  adds: 

"The  open  shop  as  the  steel-makers  propose  to  create  it 
apparently  means  the  destruction  of  this  balance.  It  is  for 
this  reason  that  the  action  of  the  steel  manufacturers  takes  on 
a  more  sinister  aspect  than  cvtn  the  most "  determ'.nd  and  wide- 
spread labor  movement". 

Likewise,  the  New  York  World  sees  the  "Brindells  of  Big 


84 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


Business'  taking  their  place  ''alongside  the  Brindells  of  Or- 
ganized Lal:ior."  "The  main  moral  and  economic  distinction  ])e- 
tween  the  coarse  Brindell  methods  and  the  refined  Grace  me- 
thods was  that  the  labor  autocrats  collected  their  pay  in  cash 
and  the  steel  autocrats  collected  their  pay  in  the  form  of  divi- 
dends out  of  sweated  immigrant  employes."  In  the  World's 
opinion,  "the  Brindellism  of  big  business  is  even  more  of  a 
public  menace  than  the  Bj-i4idellism  of  organized  labor",  and  it 
proceeds  to  develop  this  thought  in  another  edtiorial: 

"When  manufacturers  undertake  to  dictate  the  particular 
k'.nd  of  laljor  that  purchasers  of  their  products  shall  employ  they 
luivc  but  one  step  to  take  before  lim'ting  builders  and  owner., 
as  to  the  use  and  the  occupancy  of  their  properties.  Aside  from 
the  intolerable  tyranny  of  this  situation  as  respects  capital,  labor, 
and  bousing  in  New  York,  the  attitude  of  the  steel-makers  con- 
firms everyth'ng  charged  against  them  last  year  at  the  time  of 
the  strike  and  since  substantiated  by  the  report  of  the  Inter- 
clnirch  Committee. 

"Tb.us  the  existence  of  an  industrial  autocracy  which  defies 
("oiigresses  and  snubs  Presidents  easily  becomes  a  menace  to 
great  populations  far  removed  from  its  thundering  mills  and 
Squalid  camps  of  imported  labor.  At  great  cost  it  supprest  the 
cffi)rt  of  its  employes  to  better  working  conditions." 

Naturally,  to  a  Socialist  paper  like  the  New  York  Call,  the 
newly  reveald  attitude  of  Bethlehem  Steel  and  other  steel  con- 
cerns gives  it  a  ready  answer  to  conservative  editors  who  have 
been  denouncing  the  "one  big  union"  and  "direct  action".  Here 
is  a  "one  big  union"  which  "believes  in  solidarity  of  all  unions 
of  capital,  stands  for  the  sympathetic  strike  of  capital,  and  ob- 
serves the  policy  of  penalizing  any  other  capital  unions  that  scab 
upon  the  one  big  union.  It  believes  also  in  direct  action  for  the 
control  of  government  for  its  own  purposes". 

As  the  a1)Ove  quotations  deal  particularly  with  the  steel  and 
other  buikhng  industries,  tlie  following  dea^s  with  tlie  clotliing 
ti-:i'Jc.  As  v.otcd  (L-lstwlurc,  the  two  American  industries  wlierc 
llic  open  shop  figiU  bds  ;issumc(l  its  moNt  Iriitcr  as]:)ccts  is  steel 
[iV.d  tlK>  textile  interests.  These  quotations  ;ire  froin  the  i.iTi.-i\- 
\::V  DICF.ST  of  January  8tli,  lv21.  Accompanying  the  article 
■  i  irlure  of  Sidgnc}'  Hillman,  President  of  the  Amalgamated 
i  "  [h'v.'j,  )rker>,  who  is  quoted  as  accusing  the  clothing  manufac- 
-  f    Xlw    York   i)f   trying   to   keep   prices   up   and   to  '"re- 

ihf  sweat  sill)])  if  po-si])!^." 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


85 


THE  "OPEN-SHOP"  FIGHT  IN  THE  CLOTHING  TRADE 
Literary  Digest— Jan.  8,  1921.     PP.  18-19 

A  PICTURE  OF  ALL  AMERICAN  INDUSTRY,  tho 
"somewhat  highly  colord,"  is  found  l)y  the  New  York  Ghilje  in 
the  crisis  in  the  New  York  clothing  trade,  and  other  dailes  agree 
that  there  is  not  a  separate  incident  but  the  initial  phase  of  a 
general  movement.  This  "garment  trade"  battle  in  the  open 
shop  war  is  dcemd  the  more  significant  Ijecause  in  the  chief 
cities  where  men's  clothing  is  made  industrial  peace  has  long  been 
ma-ntaind  by  an  agreement  between  tlie  chief  union  and  thj 
manufacturers,  which  includes  voluntary  submission  to  an  im- 
partial tribunal.  The  long  and  bitter  war  of  words  in  the  New- 
York  papers — one  side  being  accused  of  aiming  to  bring  back 
"sweat-shops"  and  the  other  of  setting  up  "Soviets" — began 
when  the  New  York  clothing  manufacturers  decided  not  to 
renew  their  agreement  last  summer  but  to  start  up  after  the 
slack  fall  season  with  lower  wages,  piece-work  and  the  open 
shop.  There  had  been  minor  strikes  and  lockouts,  of  little  prac- 
tical importance,  because  hardly  any  w^ork  is  done  in  the  fall 
season.  But  as  the  new  season  comes  on  the  clothing  workers' 
union  is  raising  a  million-dollar  strike  fund,  sending  out  pickets, 
planning  for  a  long  strike,  and  has  made  an  alliance  with  four 
other  needle  trades,  which  brings  400,000  workers  with  the 
needle  into  a  close  union  for  defensive  purposes.  The  president 
of  the  Amalgamated  Clothing  Workers'  Union  and  the  head  of 
the  New  York  Manufacturers'  Association  have  written  so  many 
letters  and  publisht  so  many  statements  as  somewhat  to  con- 
fu.-e  the  real  issues  at  stake.  The  question,  says  the  New  York 
Journal  of  Commerce,  is  not  so  much  of  wages  or  efficiency  of 
labor  "as  of  methods  and  nature  of  machinery  for  the  control 
of  such  questi.-ns".  The  issue,  observes  the  Brooklyn  Eagle,  "is 
not  one  of  wages  but  one  of  shop  control".  The  clothing 
workers'  union,  it  says,  "stands  for  the  Soviet  idea  of  domina- 
lion  l)y  workmen  in  the  places  where  they  are  employd.  To 
this  employers  are  bitterly  opposed.  They  hold  that  it  is  ut- 
terly incompatible  with  efficiency."  And  The  Eagle,  thus  ap- 
parently sympathizing  with,  the  employers,  "can  not  help  feel- 
ing that  the  working  people  in  this  field  are  being  l^adly  led."' 
But  as  the  New  York  Evening  Post  sees  it,  the  cry  of  Sovietism 
is  quite  unjustified.  "Freed  of  its  propaganda  sentences  and 
technical  details",  continues  The  Evening  Post,  "the  clothitig 


86 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


manufacturers'  statement  boils  down  to  an  argument  for  full  and 
unmodified  control  of  the  industry  by  the  employers,  and  for  the 
theory  of  unrestraind  competition  not  only  as  between  the  New 
York  market  and  other  markets,  but  also  as  between  manufac- 
turers in  this  market.  Freed  similarly  of  its  propaganda  sen- 
tences the  workers'  statement  boils  down  to  an  argument  for 
joint  control  of  the  industry  by  employers  and  workers 
under  the  arbitration  of  an  impartial  public  chairman,  and  for 
the  newer  theory  of  regulation  not  only  of  individual  shops  in 
the  New  York  market,  but  of  the  entire  market  one  industry  as 
a  whole".  Here,  says  the  New  York  paper,  is  an  "issue  of  gen- 
eral social  interest  with  which  the  public  has  a  right  to  concern 
itself": 

The  public  can  not  accept  irresponsible  control  by  any  one 
group  in  industry.  Such  control  has  already  brought  too  many 
evil  results,  in  the  form  of  social  discontent  and  disturbance. 
The  worker's  contention  for  a  share  in  the  control  of  his  in- 
dustry and  in  the  determination  of  quesions  affecting  his  stand- 
ard of  life  is  a  natural  human  reaction.  Sooner  or  later  Ameri- 
can employers  will  have  to  consider  that  protest,  without  pre- 
judice and  without  calling  names  and  will  have  to  meet  and 
solve  together  with  the  workers  the  problem  of  joint  regula- 
tion of  industry  so  that  it  will  run  steadily  without  stops  and 
waste.  The  New  York  clothing  industry  now  offers  a  rare  op- 
portunity for  the  rational  solution  of  this  recurring  problem." 

How  important  is  this  matter  of  "control"  in  the  clothing 
industry  appears  in  its  constant  reappearance  in  the  heated  de- 
bate between  the  manufacturer  and  the  workers,  and  may  per- 
haps be  better  understood  if  we  present  a  few  of  the  facts  con- 
cerning the  conflict  and  its  causes  as  they  have  been  brought  out 
of  late  in  the  daily  and  weekly  press.  The  Amalgamated  Cloth- 
ing Workers  of  America  was  formd  in  1914.  Prior  to  that 
time,  says  the  New  Republic  in  a  historical  survey,  "the  'sweat- 
shop', with  all  that  it  connotes,  is  a  fair  summary  description  of 
the  New  York  clothing  market".  "The  operatives  in  the  indus- 
try were  underpaid  and  furious;y  overworkt  in  unsanitary 
shops."  At  this  time  "27  per  cent  of  them  earnd  from  $5.00  to 
$10.00  a  week,  and  only  3  per  cent,  were  earning  more  than 
$25.00  a  week".  The  new  union  "successively  crowded  out  the 
more  notorious  abuses  and  progressively  lifted  the  level  of  life". 
Then, 

"Profiting  by  the  experience  of  industrial  peace  gained  in 
Chicago  at  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx's,  the  union  sought  to  in- 
troduce the  same  methods  into  the  New  York  market.  Early 
in  1919  a  machinery  of  government  was  set  up  in  New  York. 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


87 


The  essence  of  the  machinery  consisted  in  subjecting  the  entire 
market  to  a  control  which  curbed  the  individualism  of  both 
manufacturers  and  workers,  and  made  both  submit  to  a  rule  of 
industrial  law  which  promist  stability,  minimized  brute  eco- 
nomic power  in  a  higly  seasonal  occupation,  and  safeguarded 
the  public  interest  as  well,  by  enforcement  through  an  impartial 
tribunal." 

On  August  26  the  agreement  expired.  Slack  times  had  suc- 
ceeded boom  times,  and  the  Clothing  Manufacturers'  Associa- 
tion of  New  York  made  certain  demands  when  negotiations  for 
renewal  of  the  agreement  began.  The  manufacturers  declared 
that  a  50  per  cent  wage-reduction  was  essential  in  order  to  meet 
competition  in  other  markets  and  the  public  demands.  And  on 
September  24  specific  demands  were  made  of  the  union,  includ- 
ing the  right  of  the  manufacturer  to  install  piece-work,  coopera- 
tion of  workers  in  maintaining  production,  and  freedom  to  dis- 
cipline and  hire  workers  and  to  introduce  improved  machinery.  In 
answer  to  this  the  Amalgamated  askt  for  a  joint  survey  of  trade 
conditions  as  a  preliminary  to  readjustment  of  wages.  The 
manufacturers  declined,  and  on  December  2  submitted  an  ulti- 
matum demanding  piece-work,  lower  wages,  and  the  right  to 
discharge.  The  ultimatum  was  rejected  in  a  referendum  of  the 
workers,  whereupon  the  Clothing  Manufacturers'  Association 
broke  off  all  relations  with  the  Amalgamated,  a  step  which  the 
Boston  Association  took  at  about  the  same  time.  Then  began 
the  series  of  charges  and  counter-charges  by  Sidney  Hillman, 
president  of  the  Amalgamated,  and  William  Bandler,  president 
of  the  Clothing  Manufacturers'  Association.  The  case  of  the 
employers  is  containd  in  a  formal  statement  whose  main  para- 
graphs we  quote: 

"There  is  and  can  be  no  hope  for  the  saving  of  the  New 
York  clothing  market,  unless: 

"1.  The  relationship  between  the  employers  and  workers, 
dealing  together,  either  individually  or  through  the  association 
of  the  former  and  the  union  of  the  later,  be  reestablisht  upon 
renunciation  of  the  fundamental  revoluntionary  doctrine  and  pur- 
pose of  the  Amalgamated  Clothing  Workers'  Union  as  stated 
in  its  constitution,  as  follows: 

"To  put  the  organized  working  class  in  actual  control  of  the 
system  of  production"  to  the  end  that  they  shall  'be  ready  to 
take  possession  of  it'. 

"The  manufacturers  in  the  clothing  trade  do  not  intend  to 
lend  themselves  to  the  establishment  of  Sovietism  in  their  in- 
dustry. 

"2.  That  due  rewards  be  given  to  workers  on  the  basis 
solely  of  service,  efficiency,  and  competency. 


88 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


"3.  That  there  be  renounced  the  present  doctrine  of  life 
tenure  of  employment  of  workers,  without  regard  to  efficiency. 

"4.  That  there  be  r^stord  to  the  manufacturer  the  right  at 
all  times  to  determine  where  he  shall  buy  and  where  he  shall 
cau^^e  to  be  manufactured  his  product. 

"5.    lhat  the  walking  delegate  be  forever  banisht. 

"The  protestations  of  the  union  that  the  manufacturers  have 
inaugurated  a  'lockout'  and  propose  to  return  to  sweat-shop  con- 
ditions are  false.  Sweat-shop  conditions  are  today  impossible, 
through  the  safe  guards  afforded  workers  by  our  present  labor 
laws." 

In  a  statement  made  for  the  New  York  Evennig  Post,  Mr. 
Hillman  says:  "The  issue  is  government;  self-government  by 
those  who  make  up  the  industry,  that  is,  the  workers  and  the 
employers;  joint  government".  The  workers  agree  that  people 
are  paying  too  much  for  clothes,  but  "let  us  in  the  industry 
jointly  find  out  'why'  ".  The  workers,  according  to  Air.  Hill- 
man,  are  willing  to  tackle  the  problems  of  prices,  wages,  and 
increast  production  "by  joint  inquiry  and  act'on."  Accordino- 
to  the  union  leader,  the  clothing  manufacturers,  "saying  they 
could  not  make  the  profits  they  made  just  after  the  war", 
"abolisht  the  impartial  chairman  machinery,  the  union,  and  all 
control.    They  are  simply  out  for  a  gamble".    He  continues: 

"Some  employers  seem  unable  to  escape  the  temptation  to 
practice  a  ho'd-up  whenever  conditions  look  favorable.  The 
union  feels  more  loyalty  to  the  good  of  the  industry.  When  em- 
ployers in  a  boom  market  began  frantically  bidding  for  labor  and 
boosting  wages  irresponsibility,  the  Amalgamated  set  its  face 
again.'-t  those  wild  temporary  increases  and  kept  wages  stable. 

"The  unions'  position  is  lhat  the  good  of  the  public  and  the 
good  of  the  industry  depend  on  subordinating  temporary  advan- 
tage— grabbing— to  orderly  settlements  under  the  system  of 
L,overr.mcnt  cstablisht  for  the  industry.  The  union  has  its  feet 
on  the  ground.  The  government  we  talk  of  we  have  been  carr^'- 
ing  on  for  ten  years.  Whatever  readjustment  may  be  necessary 
to  meet  conditions  in  the  industry  can  all  be  made  under  that 
joint  control.  The  New  York  manufacturers'  notorious  in- 
efficiencies of  management  were  soon  to  have  come  before  that 
government;  then  the  manufacturers  turnd  tail  and  tried  to  hide 
behind  labor. 

"Some  of  these  employers  are  not  (|u'r.f  civilized,  they  are  :i 
little  atavistic,  they  are  liaving  their  last  fling  at  f reel)()(»ling.  Bu: 
in  their  hearts  they  know  well  lliat  they  cannot  ])e  the.  wh  Ac  gov- 
ernment. They  car.not  riilc  the  industry  as  years  ago.  spcr^d  the 
workers  like  machines,  and  scrap  the  workers  like  old  machines. 
They  know  that  government  will  he  set  up  again  and  that  it  will 
he  "a  going  government." 

Elsewhere  in  this  pamphlet  quotation  is  made  from  the  volume 
prepared  by  a  Commission  of  Inquiry  for  the  Interchurch  World 


THE  OPEX  SHOP 


89 


Movement  relative  to  the  great  Steel  Strike.  Church  agencies 
have  frequently  issued  pronouncements  hearing  upon  the  contro- 
versy over  the  open  or  closed  shop.  This  further  section  from  the 
LITERARY  DICiEST  furnishes  comment  from  church  papers 
and  church  organizations  under  the  title,  "The  Churches  vs.  the 
Open  Shop."  It  is  taken  from  the  issue  of  the  LITERARY  DT- 
C.EST.  Fel)ruary  19th,  1921. 

CHURCH  VS.  THE  OPEN  SHOP 

The  CATHOLIC  CHCRCH,  the  United  Protestant  Churches, 
and  tlie  largest  Protestant  denomination  have  united  with  labor 
in  condemnation  of  the  open  shop  movement,  and  the  definite  isstie 
between  thousands  of  manufacturers  and  employers  on  the  one 
hand  and  the  official  spokesmen  of  the  Christian  Church  on  the 
other  has  apparently  been  raisd.  The  tides  of  controversy  run 
high.  It  is  charged  by  the  supporters  of  the  so-called  "American 
Plan"  of  employment  that  the  Church,  in  thus  taking  up  the  pro- 
gram of  labor  is  intcrf erring  in  the  matters  entirely  beyond  its 
concvin.  But  a  Methodist  minister  testifying  before  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Education  and  Labor  insists  that  "anything  that  has 
a  broad  bearing  upon  humanity,  like  hours  of  labor,  working 
conditions,  and  rates  of  pay,  is  the  business  of  the  Church."  With 
this  view  of  their  duty  in  m.ind,  the  Commission  on  the  Church  and 
Social  Service  of  Federal  Council  of  Churches  of  Christ  in  Amer- 
ica, the  social  department  of  the  National  Catholic  Welfare  Council, 
and  the  social  service  committee  of  the  Methodist  Church  liavc 
issued  statements  upholding  labor's  contention  that  the  open  sho]), 
or  "American  plan  of  employment,"  is  in  reality  l)ut  a  camou- 
flaged campaign  for  a  closed  shop,  "a  shop  closed  against  mem- 
bers of  the  union" — warning  us  of  dire  perils  should  it  be  estal)- 
lisht.  Any  such  step,  we  are  told,  must  occasion  alarm,  and 
Christian  leaders,  "listening  to  the  rumbles  of  distant  thunder," 
point  to  cond'.ticns  in  Europe  as  a  warning  example  of  what  m.ay 
happen  here  should  a  crisis  be  evoked  by  the  present  agitation. 
While  advocates  of  the  "American  plan"  contend  that  the  laborer 
will  be  free  to  w^ork  when  and  where  and  for  whom  he  pleases, 
the  Church  replies  that  the  movement  for  the  open  shop  will  mean 
the  return  to  wage  slavery  and  the  loss  of  all  that  has  been,  and 
may  be,  gained  from  collective  bargaining.  There  is  a  wide-spread 
conviction  that  an  attem.pt  is  being  made  to  destroy  organized  labor, 
says  the  Federal  Council  statement,  and  "any  such  attempt  must 
be  viewed  with  apprehension  by  fair-minded  people."    To  pledge 


90  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


a  man  against  affiliation  with  a  union,  we  are  told,  "is  as  unfair 
and  inimical  to  economic  freedom  and  to  the  interest  of  society 
as  is  corresponding  coercion  exercised  by  labor  bodies  in  behalf 
of  the  closed  shop."  Therefore, 

"It  seems  incumbent  upon  Christian  employers  to  scrutinize 
carefully  any  movement,  however  plausible,  which  is  likely  to 
resuh  in  denying  to  the  workers  such  affiliations  as  will  in  their 
judgment  l^est  safeguard  their  interests  and  promote  their  welfare 
to  the  precipitate  disastrous  industrial  conflicts  at  a  time  when  the 
country  needs  good  will  and  co-operation  between  employers  and 
employes." 

In  the  Catholic  statement  likewise  is  found  the  conviction  that 
the  present  drive  is  not  merely  against  the  closed  shop,  "Imt  against 
unionism  itself,  and  particularly  against  collective  bargaining. 
Should  it  succeed  in  the  measure  that  its  proponents  hope,  it  will 
thrust  far  into  the  ranks  of  the  underpaid  body  of  American  work- 
ing people."  So 

"To  aim  now  at  putting  into  greater  subjection  the  workers 
in  industry  is  blind  and  foolhardy.  The  radical  movements  and 
disturbances  in  Europe  ought  to  hold  a  lesson  for  the  employers 
of  America.  And  the  voice  of  the  American  People  ought  to  be 
raisd  in  the  endeavor  to  drive  this  lesson  home." 

Warning  is  also  utterd  by  the  Federation  for  Social  Service 
of  the  Methodist  Church.  In  a  statement  prepared  for  that  body 
by  its  secretary,  Dr.  Harry  F.  Ward,  and  its  president,  Bishop 
Francis  J.  McConnell,  vv^e  are  told  that  when  we  consider  what  has 
happend  in  the  steel  industry  it  seems  "quite  clear  tliat  the  suc- 
cess of  the  present  open  shop  campaign  would  mean  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  closed  shop — closed  against  union  labor,  and  wouVi 
return  large  numbers  of  v/age  earners  to  the  living  standards  of 
sweated  industries."    Furthermore — 

"In  tlie  light  of  what  is  now  happening  in  certain  local  min- 
ing districts  in  W'cst  Virginia,  we  regard  it  as  certain  that  tlie  con- 
summation of  this  open  shop  campaign  will  perpetuate  and  increase 
chaos,  anarchy,  and  warfare  in  our  industrial  life,  will  intolerably 
delay  the  development  of  constitutional  democracy  in  industry, 
which  the  churches  have  declared  to  be  the  Christian  method  of 
industrial  control." 

The  whole  open  shop  campaign  is  simply  an  attempt  to  hoodoo 
us,  thinks  The  Herald  of  Gospel  Liberty  (Christian),  which  says 
it  is  "simply  audacious  presumption  upon  the  ignorance  or  the 
indifference  of  the  masses  of  the  American  people  to  call  their 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


91 


objectix  e  'the  American  principle  of  employment,'  "  in  the  opinion 
of  the  New  York  World  (Catholic). 

"The  fight  is  against  organized  labor,  no  more,  no  less.  If 
an  applicant  for  work  must  pledge  himself  against  joining  a  union, 
or  a  union  man  is  refused  employment,  or  a  man  who  while  em- 
ployd,  joins  a  union  and  is  discharged,  we  may  be  pardond  from 
regarding  this  as  the  great  boon  of  the  open  shop.  This  is  about 
the  type  of  freedom  we  might  expect  in  Russia." 

It  is  time  that  the  Church  enterd  into  this  particular  contro- 
versy, thinks  the  Sioux  City  Daily  Tribune,  which  rejoices  that 
no  longer  can  it  be  called  a  "namby-pamby  institution,  timorously 
shunning  all  conflict."  Opposition  to  the  "American  plan"  is  wel- 
comd,  for,  in  the  opinion  of  this  newspaper,  "the  closed  shop  has 
become  firmly  entrencht  in  the  American  industry,  and  its  re- 
moval would  be  attended  by  all  the  pain  and  danger  of  a  major 
surgical  operation." 

But  The  Manufacturers'  Record  argues  that  the  open  shop 
movement  is  not  against  labor,  as  Church  statements  would  have 
us  believe.  Furthermore,  the  Federal  Council,  as  an  organized 
attempt  to  represent  the  entire  Protestant  churches,  is  "without 
excuse  for  existence,"  we  are  told,  and  therefore — 

"It  has  no  right  to  speak  for  the  religious  life  of  this  country, 
and  its  attempt  to  influence  the  nation  against  the  open  shop  who 
are  in  favor  of  the  open  shop  and  whose  religious  convictions, 
we  venture  to  say,  are  founded  on  a  deeper  religious  life  than 
those  who  undertake  to  direct  this  organization  in  the  hope  of 
developing  an  eccleciastical  autocracy  such  as  that  on  which  men 
of  the  same  spirit  threw  away  $9,000,000  of  other  people's  money 
in  their  effort  to  build  up  the  Interchurch  World  Movement. 

"The  open  shop  movement  is  a  movement  for  the  freedom 
of  a  man  to  work  untrammeld  by  the  dictates  of  radical  labor 
leaders.  It  is  the  only  basis  on  which  there  can  be  freedom  and 
liberty  and  independence  on  the  part  of  the  individual  employe 
or  employer.  The  aggressive  leadership  of  rank  socialistic  labor 
union  men  in  trying  to  destroy  the  open  shop — the  right  of  every 
man  to  work  when  and  where  he  pleases  and  for  whom  he  pleases, 
and  the  right  of  an  employer  to  employ  whom  he  pleases  unbost 
by  an  unprincipled  gang  of  radical  walking  delegates,  must  be 
the  foundation  on  which  to  build  the  safety  and  the  permanency  of 
this  Government." 

These  church  attacks  on  the  open  shop  campaign  are  not  rel- 
isht  in  all  church  circles;  we  find  The  Presbyterian  of  the  South 


92 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


(Richmond),  for  instance,  declaring  that  "this  is  a  matter  of 
business,  which  the  Church  or  a  Council  representing  it  has  nothing 
to  do  vvith. 

OPEN  SHOP  AND  OUTSIDE  DOMINATION 

Union  labor  leaders  generally  maintain  that  the  open  shop 
would  destroy  labor  unions,  and  that  the  campaign  for  the  open 
shop  is  organized  for  that  purpose.  A  writer  connected  with  the 
Babson  Institute  in  Bostson  treats  this  matter  after  the  fashion 
indicated  below.  The  writings  of  Roger  Babson,  the  eminent  en- 
gineer and  statistician,  are  now  being  widely  read,  and  the  Insti- 
tute in  Boston  has  been  establisht  by  him  to  extend  the  service 
which  he  has  been  rendering  personally. 

One  of  labor's  serious  grievances  at  this  time  is  made  in  the 
charge  that  the  "open  shop"  agitation  of  American  industry  is 
essentially  unfair  and  an  attempt  to  destroy  the  organization  of 
lal^or  in  general.  In  so  far  as  the  charge  is  well  taken,  it  is 
a  fair  grievance.  In  most  cases,  however,  the  vs^riter  contends, 
that  the  open  shop  agitation  is  intended  only  to  counteract  the 
baneful  influence  of  the  union  in  the  matter  of  outside  dictation 
and  domination.  There  are  employers  who  perhaps  advocate  the 
"open  sliop"  as  a  means  of  disorganizing  any  group  action  on  the 
part  of  employes,  but  these  are  dec'dedly  in  the  minority,  who 
hold  these  views.  To  these  employers,  the  open  shop  really  means 
the  closed  non-union  shop.  This  for  the  inclustriaHst,  is  going  to 
as  i^reat  an  extreme  as  the  closed  union  shop  is.  for  the  trade 
unionist.  The  open  shop  has  been  declared  a  great  American 
principV^  I'.rause  it  is  essentially  in  line  with  the  "freedom  of 
contract"  v/hicli  is  guaranteed  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  quite  easy  to  see  that  the  closed  non-union  shop,  and 
the  closed  union  shop,  as  usually  understood,  are  both  in  violation 
of  this  constitutional  freedom.  The  employer  who  urges  the  open 
shop  in  the  real  sense  of  the  word,  often  claims  this  grand  and 
glorious  principle  of  freedom  of  cunlract  as  the  basis  of  his  con- 
tention. Hijv.ever  sincere  this  may  be  in  the  a])stract,  it  would 
be  better  if  he  would  state  frank'y  the  reason  nearest  his  heart, 
that  is,  the  preve^ntion  of  unfair  union  domination  in  his  business. 
It  is  nothing  to  be  ashamed  of,  and  it  is  a  piece  of  conimon  sense 
which  is  going  to  appeal  to  labor  some  day.  A  patriotic  appeal, 
however  sincere,  v/hen  a  practical,  materialistic  problem  is  involvd, 
is  not  as  effective  as  a  frank  statement  of  the  situation. 

CHRISTIAN   ETHICS   AND   PITTSBURG  EMPLOYERS 

Under  this  heading  the  New  Republic,  February  16th,  1921. 
prints  an  editorial  from  which  excerpts  appear  below.  Pittsburgh 
is  the  most  important  center  of  tlie  steel  industry  in  the  United 
States. 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


93 


R;:-cently  some  of  the  New  York  morning  newspapers  carrieil 
a  dispatch  from  Pittsburgh  which  described  a  campaign  into  which 
the  Employers'  Association  of  that  city  had  recently  enterd.  ft 
had  decided  to  convert  Pittsburg  into  an  "open  shop"  town.  What 
the  Association  meant  by  the  "open  shop"  the  dispatch  reveakl  by 
tracing  an  analogy  between  its  idea  of  an  "open  shop"  and  the 
labor  policy  of  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation.  The  Steel 
Corporation  has  always  kept  its  shops  open  to  unorganized  labor 
and  so  far*  as  possible  closed  to  organized  lalwr ;  and  it  has  re- 
cently carrid  this  practice  a  step  further  by  refusing  to  furnish 
structural  steel  to  contractors  in  New  York  City  who  employd 
union  labor  in  erecting  it.  The  Employers'  Association  of  Pitts- 
burg in  adopting  this  conception  of  an  "open  shop"  not  unnaturally 
took  over  with  it  the  same  disposition  to  use  aggressive  tactics  in 
making  it  i)revail.  The  managers  of  the  Association  began  to  look 
for  some  opponent  of  tiie  "open  shop"  or  some  friend  of  organized 
labor  which  they  could  deprive  of  any  further  opportunity  for  mis- 
chief. 

They  soon  discovered  a  victim. 

The  artic'e  declares  that  this  victim  was  found  in  the  V.  W. 
C.  A.  of  Pittsburg  whose  campaign  for  funds  was  formally  re- 
sisted 1)y  the  Employers'  Association  on  grounds  set  forth  in  a 
letter  from  Air.  William  Frew  Long,  Vice-President  and  (Gen- 
eral Manager.  This  letter  states  that  "some  of  the  things  the  Y. 
W.  C.  A.  believes  in  and  endorses  are  as  follows:  Industrial  Demo- 
cracy, Collective  Bargaining,  A  Share  in  Shop  Control  and  Man- 
agement by  the  Workers,  Labor's  desire  for  an  eciuitable  share  in 
the  profits  and  management  of  industry,  protection  of  workers 
from  enforced  unemployment,  a  minimum  wage,  government  :al)or 
exchanges  (exployment  offices),  experiments  in  co-operative 
ownership."  "Recent  radical  and  ill-advised  efforts  of  religious 
and  quasi-religious  bodies  to  'regulate  industry'  "  Mr.  Long  com- 
pares to  the  manner  in  which  a  "a  bull  regulates  a  china  shop." 
Reference  is  made  in  tlie  same  letter  to  "the  misuse  of  funds  1)\ 
tlie  ill-fated  Interchurch  World  Movement." 

After  about  two  columns  of  comment  the  article  in  New  Re- 
public concludes 

Mr.  Long's  comparison  of  the  actual  effect  of  an  industrial 
program  such  as  that  of  the  Y.  W.  C.  A.  to  the  traditional  be- 
havior of  a  bull  in  a  china  shop  is  not  altogether  felicitous.  The 
'  roup  who  are  playing  the  part  of  the  rampageous  bull  in  tlie 
moral  drama  of  American  industry  today  are  surely  the  advocates 
of  the  "open  shop."  The  fragile  china  which  the  bull  is  charg- 
ing is  the  array  of  principles  which  the  Christian  denominations 
have  placed  in  the  window  and  on  the  shelves  in  order  to  ad- 
vertise and  exemplify  the  somewhat  neglected  application  of 
Christianity  to-  modern  life.  A  fev.^  of  the  Protestant  clergy  made 
a  courageous  and  intelligent  attempt  to  put  their  principle,-,  into 


94 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


practise.  In  the  Steel  Report  of  the  Commission  of  the  Inter- 
church  World  Movement  they  showd  what  the  effect  on  a  great 
industry  is  of  a  policy  of  no-conference  with  the  workers  and  of 
the  systematic  suppression  of  unionism.  They  showd  that  it  pro- 
duced physical  atrocities  such  as  the  twelve-hour  day  and  the 
seven-day  week  and  moral  atrocities  such  as  systematic  industrial 
espionage.  But  nothing  came  of  the  report,  and  their  courage 
in  prepi.r'ng  it  had  something  to  do  with  the  unfortunate  extinc- 
tion of  the  Interchurch  World  Movement  itself.  The  question 
which  the  ir.cidtnt  raises  is  a  very  serious  one  for  the  Christian 
churches  in  America.  What  can  the  Christian  clergy  do  to  protect 
the  industrial  principles,  which  they  have  solemnly  adopted  as 
part  of  Christian  truth,  from  the  bullish  assaults  of  such  groups 
of  business  men  as  the  Employers'  Association  of  Pittsburg? 

V/ELFARE  WORK  AND  THE  OPEN  SHOP 

Air.  Gary,  speaking  for  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation, 
emphasizes  strongly  the  significance  of  the  great  amount  of  wel- 
fare work  which  he  reports  is  l)eing  done  l)y  the  corporation  and 
its  subsidiary  bodies.  At  the  headquarters  office  of  the  corpora- 
tion in  New  York,  a  department  of  the  administration  is  devoted 
to  this  work.  Impressive  literature  has  been  issued  showing  the 
large  sums  of  money  expended,  and  illustrating  the  work  by  num- 
erous pictures.  Probably  any  debater  who  desires  to  secure  a 
copy  of  this  literature  will  he  served  free  of  charge,  if  he  will  write 
to  the  proper  officer,  Mr.  C.  L.  Close,  71  Broadway,  New  York 
City. 

A  striking  instance  of  a  liljeral  policy  in  welfare  work,  which 
has  been  much  written  up  in  the  press,  is  that  of  the  Johnson-Endi- 
cott  Shoe  Manufacturing  establishment  at  Binghamton,  N.  Y.  Here 
an  open  shop  is  maintaind,  and  it  has  been  often  stated  that  the 
management  has  interposed  no  objection  to  the  organization  of 
trade  unions  among  the  employes.  Efforts  to  organize  effective 
trade  unions  are  reported  to  be  unsuccessful,  however,  and  the 
reason  given  is  that  the  company  policy  is  so  liberal  in  the  matter 
of  hours,  wages,  and  general  wn3rking  conditions  that  the  men 
feel  that  their  maintenance  of  a  labor  union  is  useless  effort  and 
expense. 

A  unique  institution  in  American  industry  is  the  Metropolitan 
Life  Insurance  Company.  It  is  not  an  industry  in  the  ordinary 
accepted  use  of  the  term,  but  it  employs  thousands  of  persons  in 
the  conduct  of  its  business,  and  it  operates  in  a  field  where  there 
is  vigorous  tompetition.  Features  of  its  policy  are  clearly  set  forth 
in  the  following,  quoted  from  a  pamphlet  of  20  pages  publisht  by 
the  company.    This  will  doubtless  he  sent  free  to  any  debater  who 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


95 


may  send  for  a  copy.  Address  the  Metropolitan  Life  Insurance 
Company,  1  Madison  Avenue,  New  York  City. 

The  Metropolitan  Life  Insurance  Company  employs  15,000 
workers  in  its  agency  and  field  force  and  6.O0O  persons  in  the 
Home  Office.  All  of  these  workers  share  the  henefits  of  its 
Welfare  Work. 

The  result  of  this  social  laboratory  experiment  in  the  rare 
that  is  given  working  people  will,  it  is  hoped,  not  only  convince 
cmp'oyers  that  Welfare  Work  is  worth-while,  but  will  induce 
them  to  carry  on  similar  work  for  their  employes,  many  of  whoiiT 
are  policy-holders  in  the  Company. 

In  order  to  increase  the  permanency  of  a  working  force,  and 
to  secure  loyalty  and  interest  on  the  part  of  employes,  all  modern 
concerns  must  make  use  of  the  latest  scientific  information  in  the 
conservation  of  hum:an  material. 

At  the  outset,  any  prejudice  against  making  changes  in  the 
daily  routine  and  in  the  facilities  of  the  workshop  must  be  scrapt. 

This  the  Aletropolitan  has  done  without  hesitation  when  the 
situation  demanded  it. 

The  office  hours  of  the  Company  are  from  9  a.  m.  to  4:30 
p.  m.,  daily,  and  9  a.  m.  to  1  p.  m.  Saturday.  This  enables  em- 
ployes to  use  the  transporation  facilities  of  the  city  outside  of 
rush  hours;  they  have  time  after  business  hours  to  attend  to 
their  private  affairs;  they  may  live  in  the  suburbs. 

A  five-minute  rest  period  in  the  morning  at  11  a.  m.  and 
in  the  afternoon  at  3  p.  m.  was  found  by  experiment  to  be  suc- 
cessful in  lessening  the  strain  on  clerks  of  the  last  hours  of  work 
in  the  morn.'ng  and  afternoon  periods.  Therefore,  it  was  instald 
generally  and  permanently.  Windows  are  flung  wide  and  clerks 
encouraged  to  take  active  exercise. 

Continued  efforts  to  imiprove  ventilation  and  sanitation  of 
the  Home  Office  have  secured  natural  light  from  two  sides  for 
most  workrooms.  Where  artificial  illumination  is  necessary,  it 
is  of  the  semi-direct  variety. 

There  is  no  doubt  at  all  that  if  Welfare  W^ork  is  to  be  a  suc- 
cess the  best  possible  working  conditions  must  be  obtaind. 

So  the  Company's  hint  to  employers  is — scrap  prejudice. 

Of  course,  Welfare  Work  must  be  an  addition  to  and  not  a 
substitute  for  wages.  Efforts  made  for  employes  for  improving 
working  conditions  or  helping  the  worker  himself  are  not  substi- 
tutes for  a  reasonable  wage,  for  opportunities  for  development  and 
advancement  or  the  right  of  an  employe  to  live  his  own  life  v/itli- 
out  undue  interference. 

With  other  corporations  in  the  country,  the  Company  is  mak- 
ing steady  progress  in  its  care  of  employes,  realizing  that  an  em- 
ployer is  responsible  for  his  employes  beyond  the  payment  of 
wages.  The  cost  of  Welfare  Work  for  employes  has  proved  to 
be  _an  entirely  justifiable  expenditure,  bringing  results  in  increast 
efficiency,  stability  of  the  w^orking  force,  and,  most  important  of 
all,  perhaps,  in  individual  loya'ty. 

The  success  of  the  efforts  of  the  Company  to  improve  the 


96 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


tirade  of  employes  and  to  retain  their  services  is  proved  by  the 
fact  that,  in  spite  of  a  rapid  increase  in  the  number  of  employes, 
50  percent  of  the  employes  of  the  Plome  Office  have  been  there 
five  years  or  more. 

These  are  instances  among  man}-  in  different  parts  of  tlie 
country  where  wtlfare  work  and  the  maintenance  of  wage  scales 
and  all  the  working  conditions,  above  the  standards  contended  for 
l)y  the  labor  unions,  have  insured,  sometimes  thru  long  periods,  a 
contented  corps  of  working  people.  Perhaps  the  most  wide'y  a^i- 
vertised  industrial  institution  where  liberal  wage  scales  deterrrine 
the  contentment  of  the  workers  and  forestall  labor  disturbances,  is 
that  of  Henry  Ford's  large  autoniobi'.e  manufacturing  establishment 
in  Detroit,  witli  its  rapidly  extending  subsidiary  enterprises  lo- 
cated elsev^^here. 

To  all  arguments  for  the  open  shop  l)ased  upon  these  in- 
stances, union  lalior  leaders  are  accustornd  to  reply,  first,  that  these 
liigh  standards  either  of  wages  or  of  welfare  wouM  not  appear  in 
even  the  Tmited  numl)er  of  cases  now  known,  if  the  labor  unions 
had  not  for  years  past  contended  for  high  standards  thruout  the 
whole  of  American  industry.  The  fact  that  the  persistent  effort 
of  organized  labor  has  been  the  determining  factor  in  winning 
m.any  important  industrial  reforms  is  conceded  by  all  students  of 
llie  prol)lem.  Many  employers  themselves  concede  that  this  is  true. 
Mr.  Gary,  of  the  United  Steel  Corporation,  is  among  these,  tho 
he  very  emphatic  in  his  judgment  that  labor  unions  should  no 
longer  exist. 

In  the  pamphlet,  "Principles  and  Policies  of  the  United  States 
Steel  Corporation,"  from  which  quotations  are  taken  elsewhere  in 
our  pamphlet,  Mr.  Gary  says  : 

Personally.  T  believe  they  (labor  unions)  have  been  justified  in 
the  long  past,  for  1  think  the  workmen  were  not  always  treated 
justl}';  that  l)ecatise  of  their  lack  of  exi:)erience  or  otherwise  they 
were  unai/ie  to  i)r()tect  themselves  ;  and  therefore  needed  the  assis- 
tance of  outsiders  iji  order  to  5-(Cure  their  lights. 

r.ut  whatcwr  may  ]ia\-e  been  tlie  conditions  of  employment  in 
the  long  past,  and  wb.atcver  may  have  been  tlie  results  of  union- 
ism, concerning  which  there  is  at  least  much  uncertainty,  there  is 
at  present,  in  the  opinion  of  the  large  majority  of  both  employers 
anel  employes,  no  necessity  for  lal)or  unions;  and  that  no  benefit 
or  advantage  thru  them  will  accrue  to  anyone  except  the  union 
]al)or  leaders. 

To  this  reasoning  the  union  labor  leaders  reply  that  such  ad- 
missions and  the  still  prevailing  injustice  in  many  fields  of  indus- 
trial life,  are  -conclusive  demonstration  that  la1)or  unions  have  not 
(^nly  done  much  for  the  wdiole  of  American  industry  but  their 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


97 


W.  C.  A.  believes  in  and  endorses  are  as  follows :  "some  of  t789 
further  existence  and  work  is  essential  to  true  industrial  progress. 
Mr.  Gary  says  that  the  open  shop  will  now  insure  justice  to 
labor.  Union  labor  leaders  insist  that  on'y  the  unionized  shop  can 
safeguard  for  the  whole  American  industry  the  gains  so  far  made, 
and  insure  reasonable  progress  in  industry. 

In  the  second  place,  union  labor  leaders  are  much  inclined  to 
discount  the  value  of  "welfare  work."  Not  only  does  it  often,  as 
they  maintain,  assume  the  form  of  patronage  and  charity,  which  is 
humiliating  to  self-respecting  working  people,  but  it  leaves  the 
interests  of  labor  subject  to  the  caprice  of  the  management  of  the 
particular  industry  practicing  this  kind  of  patronage.  They  point 
to  the  Pullman  Company  as  illustration,  and  a  vindication  of 
this  warning.  Years  ago  the  Pullman  Company  was  widely  and 
gratuitously  advertised  in  the  press  of  the  country  as  most  ad- 
vanced in  its  standards  of  wages,  and  in  the  remarkable  provisions 
made  for  labor  in  its  specially  built  town  of  Pullman,  111. 

It  is  pointed  out  by  the  union  leaders  that  that  industry,  under 
the  despotic,  though  originally  benevolent,  control  of  the  manage- 
ment and  capital,  has  not  kept  pace  with  advancing  standards  in 
industry,  but  has  rather  retrograded,  until  some  of  the  most  acute 
labor  disturbances  of  later  years  have  centerd  in  that  industry.  The 
opening  paragrapli  in  a  newspaper  dispatch  of  June  21st,  1921, 
reads : 

The  Pullman  Company  lost  its  open  shop  fight  before  the 
United  States  Railroad  Labor  Board  today,  when  the  Board  up- 
held the  contention  of  the  union  leaders  that  the  company  had  not 
obeyd  "the  letter  and  spirit"  of  the  Transportation  act  when  it 
conferd  with  its  employes  in  mass  meeting. 

On  general  principles,  labor  leaders  maintain,  despotism  or 
autocracy  is  objectionaljle.  It  cannot  be  redeemd  by  any  degree  of 
temporary  benevolence  on  the  part  of  the  management.  Its  very 
nature  is  unworthy  of  and  sacrifices  the  rights  of  the  American  in- 
dustrial freeman. 

How  far  our  debate  should  be  carrid  into  this  field,  the  de- 
baters must  themselves  decide.  As  has .  been  "  frequently  remarkt, 
this  question  of  the  open  shop  opens  up  practically  every  major 
and  most  of  the  minor  problems  of  American  industry  today.  How 
far  welfare  work  and  the  spontaneous  concessions  of  capitalistic 
management  can  be  accepted  as  properly  safeguarding  the  interests 
of  American  lal)or  is  a  question  which  at  least  union  labor  leaders 
believe  enters  as  a  question  of  prime  and  direct  importance. 
Neither  benevolence  nor  self-interest  under  open  shop  conditions 


98  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOAIA 


ill  the  past  has  deterd  iincontrold  industrial  managers  from  grave 
injustice;  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  open  shop  re- 
establisht  will  serve  any  better  in  the  future,  say  the  unionists. 

INDUSTRIAL  DEMOCRACY  AND  THE  OPEN  SHOP 

Union  labor  leaders  are  not  as  a  rule  sympathetic  to  recent 
movements  described  under  the  general  term,  industrial  demo- 
cracy. They  believe  in  democracy,  but  they  seem  convinced  that 
most  of  the  experiments  now  being  made  in  joint  control  of  a 
particular  industry  by  capital  and  labor,  are  really  more  or  l-:ss 
conscious  subterfuges  thru  which  capital  and  capitalistically  con- 
trold  industrial  managers  seek  to  loosen  the  hold  which  labor  has 
gained  thru  the  success  of  the  trade  union. 

These  experiments  are  necessarily  confined  to  particular  in- 
dustrial establishments,  and  such  portions  of  a  given  industry  as  arc 
under  a  unified  control.  On  the  other  hand,  the  trade  union  aims 
to  include  the  working  people  of  a  whole  trade  or  branch  of  in- 
dustry in  one  organization.  The  Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engi- 
neers, for  example,  is  not  confined  to  a  particular  railroad,  or  a 
single  railroad  system,  but  draws  its  members  from  any  or  all  of 
the  railroads  of  the  country. 

Thus  these  programs  of  industrial  democracy  are  weakening 
the  trade  unions,  or  the  union  leaders  maintain  that  they  are.  And 
certainly  they  wouM  naturally  have  that  effect,  in  so  far  as  it 
is  the  strength  of  the  trade  union  to  bargain  for  wages  and  hours 
^.nd  working  conditions  for  an  entire  industry  through  one  deal  or 
on  a  comm.on  basis.  A  program  of  industrial  democracy  brings 
labor  into  partnership  v/ith  capital  and  the  management  on  a 
basis  agreed  upon  between  the  working  people  of  that  particular 
establishment  or  unified  system,  without  immediate  regard  to  con- 
tracts which  working  people  in  a  competitive  establishment  may 
have  made  with  their  capital  and  management. 

This,  union  leaders  believe,  is  likely  to  prove  a  step  backward 
in  industrial  organization,  rather  than  a  step  forward.  While 
most  of  these  programs  of  industrial  democracy  claim  to  maintain 
neutrality  toward  labor  unions,  yet  their  success  must  destroy  the 
trade  unions,  say  the  union  leaders,  and  split  American  industry  up 
into  relatively  small  units,  leaving  industries  pitted  against  each 
other  in  a  wasteful  and  embitterd  competition,  a  state  of  affairs 
from  which  the  trade  union  has  already  done  much  to  redeem  the 
American  system,  and  for  which  it  ought  to  be  preservd  and  en- 
couraged to  do  vastly  more.    In  so  far  as  the  working  people  of 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


99 


one  establishment  enter  into  close  partnership  with  the  capital  and 
management  of  their  own  particular  concern,  in  that  degree  will 
they  lose  their  sense  of  fellowship  with  the  great  army  of  labor 
which  the  trade  union  has  been  so  largely  instrumental  in  mobiliz- 
ing in  a  class-conscious  host.  Thus  the  best  for  which  the  trade 
union  has  been  contending  will  be  lost,  and  there  will  prevail  no 
common  consciousness  thruout  the  laboring  class.  Nor,  of  course, 
will  they  be  able  to  act  concertedly  in  their  common  interests. 

To  all  this  the  promoter  of  industrial  derhocracy  replies 
that  industrial  democracy  will  make  it  unnecessary  and  undesirable 
for  labor  to  maintain  a  class-consciousness  or  seek  to  mobilize  its 
liosts  as  such.  There  will  be  nothing  left  for  an  army  organized 
after  that  fashion  to  fight  for.  Fuller  justice  for  all  can  be  at- 
taind  thru  this  program,  and  the  warfare  which  the  trade  union  . 
I)rogram  has  so  frequent'y  precipitated  will  be  eliminated  to  the 
good  of  industry  and  of  every  element  concernd  in  industry. 

At  this  point  the  union  leader  demands  to  be  shown,  or  rather 
he  insists  that  abundant  past  experience  and  much  fighting  for  the 
riglits  of  labor  as  labor,  convince  him  that  these  expectations  are 
vain,  that  these  new  programs  will  not  insure  for  labor  the  just 
treatment  promist,  and  that  in  the  meantime  the  trade  union  sys- 
tem builded  at  such  prodigious  labor  and  thru  the  terrible  sacrifice 
of  multitudes  of  working  people  will  be  wreckt.  Thus  in  the  end, 
laljor  will  be  left,  as  formerly,  with  no  defense  against  the  arbi- 
trary measures  of  a  conscienceless  capitalistic  management. 

Each  debater  will  weigh  for  himself  these  arguments  and  coun- 
ter-arguments. 

It  will  help  the  debater  of  either  side  to  study  in  some  de- 
tail one  or  more  of  these  plans  for  industrial  democracy. 

John  D.  Rockefeller,  Jr.,  will  doubtless  be  accepted  generally 
as  a  leader  in  this  movement,  though  it  has  taken  on  numerous 
phases  for  which  he  is  not  a  sponsor.  Following  the  destructive 
strike  in  coal  and  iron  fields  of  Colorado  several  years  ago,  he 
personally  interested  himself  in  the  development  of  a  plan  for  in- 
dustrial co-operation  which  has  manifestly  reduced  friction,  and 
has  been  v/idely  accepted  as  a  markt  advance  in  industrial  organi- 
zation. Each  debater  can  probably  secure  full  information  about 
this  plan  by  applying  to  Mr.  Rockefeller's  office  at  26  Broadway, 
New  York  City. 

Before  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United  States,  in 
Atlantic  City,  N.  J.,  December,  1918,  Mr.  Rockefeller  made  an  ad- 
dre><;  which  attracted  markt  attention  at  the  time,  and  which  his 


100  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 

l)een  widely  circulated  since  in  pamphlet  form.    The  title  is  "Rep- 
resentation in  Industry,"  and  the  introductory  note  says  : 
This  address  is  an  appeal  to  employers. 

It  is  a  plea  to  leaders  of  industry  to  meet  the  industrial  prob- 
lems of  reconstruction  in  a  spirit  of  co-operation,  ju^:t:ce,  fair 
play  and  brotherhood.  It  was  deliverd  to  a  convention  of  employers 
just  after  the  war  ended. 

The  address  might  have  been  deliverd  without  a  change  to 
a  convention  of  workingmen. 

If  the  creed  it  embodies  is  deserving  of  acceptance  by  em- 
ployers, it  should  be  equally  acceptable  to  all  those  who  participate 
in  industry.  Common  welfare,  not  class  warfare,  is  its  underly- 
ing thought. 

In  the  body  of  the  text,  this  paragraph  is  prin'-ed  vith  bold 
underscoring : 

We  ought  not  to  allow  the  occasional  failure  in  the  working 
of  the  principle  of  tlie  organization  of  Labor  to  prejudice  us 
against  the  principle  itse'f,  for  the  principle  is  fundamen'r-illv  sound. 

A  paragraph,  following  shortly,  adds: 

Labor  unions  have  secured  for  Labor  in  general  many  ad- 
vantages in  hours,  wages  and  standards  of  working  conditions.  A 
large  proportion  of  the  workers  of  the  country,  however,  are  out- 
side of  these  organizations,  and  unless  somehow  represented  are 
not  in  a  position  to  bargain  collectively.  Therefore,  reprc^^entaiScn 
of  Labor  to  be  adequate  must  be  more  comprehensive  and  all-in- 
clusive than  anything  thus  far  attaind. 

A  considerable  section  of  the  address  is  devoted  to  an  out- 
line of  the  plan  in  recent  operation  among  industrial  ccrpcrai ions 
with  which  Mr.  Rockefeller  is  himself  connected.  Of  this  plan  lie 
says  : 

It  begins  with  the  election  of  representatives  in  a  single  plant, 
and  is  capable  of  indefinite  development  to  meet  the  complex  needs 
of  any  industry  and  of  wide  extension  so  as  to  include  all  inius- 
tries.  Equal'y  applicable  in  industries  where  union  or  non-union 
labor  or  both  are  employd,  it  seeks  to  provide  full  and  fair  rep- 
resentation to  Labor,  Capital  and  Management,  taking  cognizance 
of  the  Community. 

Another  organization  which  might  properly  fall  under  our 
present  general  heading  is  that  of  the  great  Bethlehem  Steel  Corpo- 
ration, located  at  Bethlehem,  Pa.,  of  which  Mr.  Charles  AI.  Schwab 
is  the  head.  This  corporation,  as  indicated  by  quotations  appear- 
ing elsewhere  in  this  bulletin,  has  recently  antagonized  the  labor 
unions  to  the  extent  of  declining  to  deliver  its  product  to  builders 
in  New  York  who  employd  union  labor.  The  labor  union  leaders 
are  resentful  against  this  particular  form  of  organization.  It  seems 
to  have  forestald  successful  trade  union  organization  in  the  Beth- 
lehem shops. 


T"HE  OPEN  SHOP 


101 


Ot  ihe  plan  Air.  Schwab,  in  an  address  before  the  Cb.amber 
of  Commerce  in  New  York,  x\pril  28th,  1921,  stated: 

We  have  at  Bethlehem  a  plan  of  collective  barga.'niiig  knav.n 
as  "Employes'  Rrepresentaticn."  It  work«.  And  it  Avorks  by  ac- 
tuary recognizins:  the  rights  of  the  men  to  negotiate  with  the 
management,  and  not  engaging  in  needless  discussion  over  words 
and  phrases. 

The  Bethlehem  Steel  Company  has  prepared  literature  setting 
forth  the  experience  of  the  corporation  with  the  plan,  and  any 
debater  wishing  to  pursue  the  study  can  secure  a  copy  by  address- 
ing the  Company  at  Bethlehem,  or  Mr.  J.  M.  Laikin,  assistant  to 
the  President. 

A  publication  of  the  Company,  dated  February,  1921,  says; 

The  Bethlehem  plan,  which  has  been  in  operation  since  October, 
1918,  we  feel  is  no  longer  an  experiment.  The  original  by-laws 
made  provision  for  amendments,  and,  as  was  anticipated,  we  are 
from  tim.e  to  time,  by  agreement  with  our  employes,  making  minor 
improvements  and  changes.  The  operation  of  the  Plan  to  date 
shows  it  to  be  fundamentally  correct,  and  in  our  judgment  has 
proven  it  to  be  a  success. 

It  bears  upon  a  point  brought  out  elsewhere  to  reprint  here  a 
paragraph-  from  the  Plan  which  reads: 

The  representation  of  employes,  as  hereinafter  provided,  shall 
in  no  way  al)ridge,  or  conflict  with,  the  right  of  employes  to  be- 
long to  labor  unions. 

But  other  plans  now  being  devclopt  in  consideral^le  numbers 
are  far  more  thorogoing  in  their  "democracy"  than  either  of  these 
mentiond.  Air.  Gary,  as  already  quoted,  believes  in  high  wages,  and 
the  expenditure  of  large  sums  in  welfare  work,  but  he  believes  that 
in  the  control  of  the  industry  the  right  of  participation  should  be 
gaind  thru  stockholding.  Apparently  he  is  not  prepared  to  recog- 
nize the  right  of  labor  as  labor  to  participate  in  the  management 
of  industry. 

And  in  the  plans  briefly  outlined  al)Ove,  labor's  representa- 
tion is  a  matter  of  conccss'on  on  the  part  of  capital  and  the 
management,  or  seems  to  gain  its  warrant  from  that  source. 

Other  plans  proceed  upon  what  is  stated  to  be  the  inherent 
right  of  labor  to  participate  in  the  management.  The  attack  of  the" 
union  leaders  against  these  "concessions"  is  at  least  consistent 
with  their  industrial  philosophy,  and  seems  to  justify  their  conten- 
tion that  a  concession  miade  by  the  grace,  of  a  despotic  powder  may 
be  withdrawn  at  the  will  of  that  power.  This  attack  wou'd  not 
seem  to  be  so  justified  in  the  case  of  the  plans  which  recognize  the 
inherent  right  of  labor  to  participate  in  the  control  of  industry. 


102 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


That  right  cannot  be  withdrawn  at  the  will  of  capital  or  the  man- 
agement. 

Probably  the  handiest  source  for  any  debater  who  wishes  to 
pursue  this  study  will  be  a  little  book  publisht  by  Houghton 
Mifflin  Company,  entitled  "The  Industrial  Republic,"  by  Paul  Litch- 
field, Vice-President  and  Factory  Manager  of  the  Goodyear  Tire 
and  Rubber  Company.  The  book  not  only  outlines  the  plan  of 
such  a  "republic,"  but  sets  forth  in  a  very  valuable  essay  the  phil- 
osophy upon  which  it  is  based. 

The  organization  is  closely  modeld  after  our  Federal  Govern- 
ment, and  aims  to  insure  fundamental  rights  in  the  industrial  en- 
terprise for  its  citizens, — the  Industrians  as  they  are  known  in  the 
plan, — comparable  to  those  rights  which  our  federal  constitution 
guarantees  to  the  American  citizen  in  his  nation. 

The  plan  became  effective  in  July  of  1919  in  the  factories  of 
the  company  at  Akron,  Ohio. 

We  cannot  quote  here  at  length  from  the  plan.  It  is  in  point 
to  reprint  these  two  paragraphs  : 

A  Goodyear  Industrian  must~be  18  years  of  age,  must  be  an 
American  citizen,  understand  the  English  language,  and  have  a  six 
months'  continuous  service  record  in  the  Goodyear  Factory  im- 
mediately prior  to  election.  Each  Goodyear  Industrian  is  en- 
titld  to  vote. 

There  shall  be  no  discrimination  against  any  Goodyearite  on 
account  of  membership  or  non-membership  in  any  labor  organiza- 
tion, or  against  any  Representative  or  Senator  for  action  taken 
l)y  him  in  performance  of  his  duties  as  outlined  in  this  Plan. 

Now  there  remains,  in  this  connection,  to  point  out  the  bearing 
of  all  this  on  our  particular  question.  All  of  these  plans  declare 
for  the  open  shop.  It  is  not  the  open  shop  for  which  Mr.  Gary  and 
employers  who  share  his  industrial  philosophy  contend.  Nor  is  it 
the  open  shop  against  which  the  union  labor  leaders  direct  their 
frontal  and  more  vehement  attacks.  They  do  attack  these  plans 
more  or  less  consistently,  because,  as  they  maintain,  and  as  is 
perhaps  demonstrated  by  experience,  they  weaken  the  trade  unions. 
And  these  leaders  justify  their  opposition  on  the  ground  that  these 
plans  have  no  such  assurance  of  permanent  justice  to  labor  as  the 
trade  union  affords. 

Our  debate  is  likely  to  get  hung  up  on  the  snag  of  definition. 
What  is  an  open  shop?  There  is  "danger  that  the  two  debating 
teams  will  find  themselves  discussing  two  different  questions.  The 
open  shop  of  one  side  may  not  be  the  open  shop  of  the  other  side 
at  all.  This  is  a  peril  which  is  to  be  encounterd  in  almost  all  de- 
bates.   Try  in  advance  to  avoid  a  "fluke."    Make  your  debate  real. 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


103 


and  agree  between  yourselves,  so  far  as  practicable,  upon  your  defi- 
nitions and  the  real  question  which  you  propose  to  debate.  It  is 
manifest  that  there  is  a  vast  difference  between  the  open  shop  of 
Mr.  Gary  and  the  Steel  Corporation,  and  the  open  shop  of  Mr. 
Litchfield  and  the  Goodyear  Tire  and  Rubber  Company.  Mr. 
Gompers  might  be  disposed  to  oppose  both  and  to  prefer  his  union 
shop  to  either,  but  lie  would  doubtless  base  his  opposition  in  the 
one  case  on  quite  different  grounds  from  that  of  the  other. 

INTERCHURCH  MOVEMENT  AND  THE  STEEL  STRIKE 

In  the  fall  of  1919  there  occurd,  in  the  steel  industry,  one 
of  the  most  momentous  industrial  disturbances  of  American  his- 
tory. Its  influence  is  still  far  from  being  spent,  and  the  questions 
at  issue  are  far  from  being  settld. 

In  a  number  of  the  plants  of  the  United  States  Steel  Cor;;or.i- 
tion  and  its  subsidiary  organizations  a  large  enough  proportion  of 
the  workingmen  quit  work  to  tie  up  the  plants  and  greatly  to  dis- 
turb the  industry.  Steel  is  so  important  in  the  Am;^rican  industrial 
system  that  our  whole  economic  order  was  more  or  less  affected. 

Efforts,  even  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  the 
Federal  Government,  were  unavailing  to  bring  representatives  of 
the  opposing  forces  even  into  conference  over  the  issues  involvd. 
Mr.  Gary,  backt  by  his  stockholders  in  the  Steel  Corporac'on,  de- 
clined even  to  meet  Mr.  Gompers  and  his  associates  in  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor,  declaring  that  adherence  to  a  moral  prin- 
ciple involvd  forbade  his  doing  so. 

The  Interchurch  World  Movement,  then  in  very  active  opera- 
tion, appointed  a  Commission  of  Inquiry,  which  "went  to  the  steel 
workers  with  two  main  questions:  A.  Why  did  you  strike  (Or 
refuse  to  strike?)  and  B.  What  do  you  want?"  Answers  ro  the 
first  question  "were  found  to  deal  with  tilings  that  existed  — 
schedules  of  hours,  wages,  conditions,  grievances,  physical  states 
and  states  of  mind."  Answers  to  the  second  question  "were  found 
to  deal  with  a  method  (hitherto  non-existent  in  the  steel  industry), 
for  changing"  existing  c(inditions ;  'the  strike  leaders  calld  it  collec- 
tive bargaining  and  the  right  to  organization  ;  the  steel  employers 
calld  it  the  closed  shop  and  labor  autocracy." 

Debaters  who  decide  to  use  the  conditions  in  the  steel  industry, 
and  the  issue  involvd  in  this  great  strike,  as  a  determining  argu- 
ment should  secure  a  copy  of  the  report  of  the  Interchurch  Coir- 
rmssion.  It  is  authoritatively  publisht  in  a  volume  of  277  pr.ge- 
by  Harcourt,  Brace  and   Howe,  of   New   ^'ork.     T.ibcral   ciiM'.  Lli 


i04 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


quotations  are  made  from  this  report  in  one  or  more  of  the  vol- 
umes we  have  recommended  that  each  debater  shall  secure,  lo 
enable  you  to  discover  the  bearing  of  this  incident  upon  Oiir 
question. 

We  shall  not  attempt  here  an  exhaustive  treatment  of  the 
matter,  but  you  can  see  from  the  brief  quotations  just  made  that 
the  open  shop  is  central.  The  experience  of  the  Steel  Corpora- 
tion in  this  strike  is  the  event  more  than  any  other  one  which  has 
precipitated  the  vigorous  campaign  for  the  open  shop,  which  it 
and  many  other  employers  of  labor  are  now  pressing.  The  strike 
faild.  At  any  rate,  a  large  proportion  of  the  working  people  wiio 
walkt  out  returnd  to  their  positions  on  the  old  terms,  or  on  chose 
prescribed  by  the  Corporation,  and  the  managers  declined  to  the 
last  even  to  enter  into  conference  with  the  labor  leaders.  How- 
ever, in  a  letter  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  accompar.v- 
ing  a  copy  of  its  report,  the  Interchurch  Commission  makes  the 
prediction,  "Unless  vital  changes  are  brought  to  pass,  a  renov.'al 
of  the  conflict  in  this  industry  seems  inevitable."  Whether  tlie 
Commission  believes  that  these  "vital  changes"  involve  merely  the 
abandonment  of  such  working  conditions  as  the  twelve-hour  day 
(stated  by  Mr.  Gary  to  include  69,000  working  men),  a  seven -'by 
week  and  a  below-standard  wage,  or  whether  they  include  also  an 
acceptance  of  a  program  of  collective  bargaining  such  as  is  in- 
sisted upon  by  the  labor  union  leaders,  is  not  m.ade  decisive. 

Certainly  all  is  not  peaceful  in  the  steel  industry,  and  the 
leaders  of  labor  union  hosts  are  far  from  satisfied  with  conditions 
now  prevailing. 

The  report  of  the  Interchurch  Commision  has  been  bitterly  at- 
tackt  by  the  Steel  Corporation,  and  by  publications  and  employers 
who  sympathized  with  the  Corporation  during  the  strike.  Its 
findings  have  been  correspondingly  commended  and  explr^ited  l)y 
the  unions  and  those  who  believe  that  the  methods  of  the  Corpora- 
tion are  unjust  and  despotic.  Just  as  the  Corporation  declined  to 
accept  the  mediation  of  the  Government,  it  refused,  froin  the  first, 
to  welcome  the  activities  of  this  Commission.  "At  one  periovl,"  ihc 
report  states,  "investigation  was  delayed  by  an  effort  of  the  Com- 
mission to  settle  the  strike.  The  Commission,  having  been  urged 
to  do  so  in  a  manner  impossible  to  refuse,  actually  formulated  n 
plan  of  mediation  which  was  formally  accepted  by  the  leaders  of 
the  strike  but  was  definitely  rejected  by  the  Steel  Corporation."  

A  few  further  brief  excerpts  from  the  report  must  suflfice 
here.    The  only  way  to  handle  this  argument  effectively,  either  fro:>^ 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


105 


the  affirmative  or  the  negative  point  of  view,  is  to  study  iho 
who'e  report. 

Conditions  of  labor  were  fixt  by  the  Corporation,  without  col- 
lective bargaining  or  any  functioning  means  of  conference;  also 
without  above-board  means  of  learning  how  the  decreed  conditions 
affected  tlie  workers. 

Ultimate  control  of  the  plants  was  vested  in  a  small  group 
of  financiers  whose  relation  to  the  producing  force  was  remote. 

*  *  * 

Approximately  one-half  the  employes  were  subjected  to  the 
twelve-hour  day.  Approxim.ate'y  one-half  of  these  in  turn  were 
subjected  to  the  seven-day  week.    Much  less  than  one-quarter  had 

a  working  day  of  !ess  than  ten  hours  (sixty-hour  week). 

*  *  * 

The  aljritrary  control  of  the  Steel  Corporation  extended  outside 
the  plants,  affecting  the  workers  as  citizens  and  the  social  insti- 
tut'ons  in  the  communities. 

The  steel  industry  was  under  the  domination  of  a  policy  whose 
aim  was  to  keep  out  the  laljor  unions.  In  pursuit  of  this  policy, 
blacklists  were  used,  workmen  were  dischargd  for  union  affilia- 
tion, "undtr-cover  men"  and  "labor  detectives"  were  employd  and 
efforts  were  m.adc  to  influence  the  local  press,  pulpit  and  police 
authorities. 

*  *  * 

The  organizing  campaign  of  the  workers  and  the  strike  were 
for  the  purpose  of  forcing  a  conference  in  an  industry  where  no 
means  of  conference  cxisled;  this  specific  conference  to  set  up 
trade  union  collective  bargaining,  particu'arly  to  abolish  the  twelve- 
hour  day  and  arbitrary  methods  of  handling  employes. 

No  .nterpretation  of  the  niovcnient  as  a  plot  or  conspiracy  fits 
the  facts;  that  is,  it  was  a  mass  movement,  in  which  leadership 
became  of  secondary  im.portance. 

Charges  of  Bolshevism  or  of  industrial  radicalism  in  the  con- 
duct of  the  strike  were  without  foundation. 

The  chief  cause  of  the  defeat  of  the  strike  was  the  size  of 
the  Steel  Corporation,  together  with  the  strength  of  its  active 
opposition  and  the  support  accorded  it  by  employers  general'y, 
by  governmental  agencies  and  by  organs  of  public  opinion. 

Causes  of  defeat,  second  in  importance  only  to  the  fight 
waged  by  the  Steel  Corporation,  lay  in  the  organization  and  leader- 
ship, not  so  much  of  the  strike  itself,  as  of  the  American  labor 
movement. 


ANSWERS  TO  THE  STEEL  STRIKE  REPORT  OF  THE 
INTERCHURCH  COMMISSION 

These  were  numerous  and  some  of  them  bitter  in  the  ex- 
treme. None  was  anything  like  so  extended  and  circumstantial 
as  was  the  report  itself.    How  much  the  criticism  of  this  "In- 


■06 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


quiry"  had  to  do  with  the  collapse  of  the  Intcrchnrch  Alovement, 
which  appointed  the  Commission,  is  a  question  upon  which  there 
will  probaljiy  always  be  sharp  difference  of  opinion.  Both  friends 
and  foes  of  the  Movement  have  maintaind  that  it  had  much  to 
do  with  its  failure.  Numerous  employers  and  their  organs  of 
publicity  condemnd  the  Movement  for  presuming  to  carry  the 
Church  "out  of  its  sphere,"  and  scoft  at  the  alleged  ignorance 
of  "a  bunch  of  preachers  and  ex-preachers"  who  had  thus  in- 
\aded  the  field  of  economics  and  business  administration. 

Debaters  who  care  to  pursue  this  line  of  study  can  collect 
large  numbers  of  such  criticisms.  But  they  are  scatterd,  and  were 
confined  to  genera'ities  or  to  m.ore  or  less  minute  particulars  in 
the  report.  No  comprehensive  and  detaild  reply  seems  to  have 
been  attempted  by  an  agency  recognized  as  having  the  degree  of 
independence  and  lack  of  self-interest  which  the  Interchurch  Com- 
mission could  claim. 

Among  the  replies  which  the  Steel  Corporation  apparently 
esteems  to  be  most  effective  are  utterances  of  Rev.  E.  Victor  Bige- 
low,  Andover,  Mass.  His  early  attitude  had  been  such  as  to  lead 
to  his  appointment  to  sustain  the  affirmative  of  the  question,  "Was 
the  Interchurch  Commission  unfair  in  its  report  on  the  Steel 
Strike?"  This  debate  was  arranged  by  the  Worcester  (Mass.) 
Congregational  Club.  The  negative  was  sustained  by  a  member  of 
the  Commission.  Mr.  Bigelow's  discussion  was  printed  in  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce  and  State  Journal,  and  has  been  published 
by  C.  F.  Miller,  Scranton,  Pa.  Copies  are  to  be  had  at  the  offices 
of  the  Steel  Corporation. 

Brief  and  scattered  excerpts  from  Mr.  Bigelow's  charges  of 
unfairness  against  the  Report,  especially  as  they  touch  upon  our 
question,  are  the  following: 

In  the  Steel  Corporation  the  difference  Ijttwecn  a  •successful 
year  and  a  fa'lure,  often  is  located  within  the  last  ten  cents  of  every 
dollar's  worth  of  business.  They  haven't  much  leeway,  and  it 
takes  careful  watching  to  make  the  balance  fall  on  the  right  side. 
No  wonder  they  dislike  the  meddling  of  a  labor  union.  Too  many 
cooks  spoil  the  broth. 

The  unfairness  of  the  Interchurch  Report  is  conspicuous  at 
this  point;  for  it  assumes,  wholly  without  proof,  that  the  imper- 
fections and  infelicities  of  Mr.  Gary's  management  would  be  elimi- 
nated by  collective  bargaining  with  his  employes ;  whereas  he  might 
be  muddled  by  the  most  ideal  collective  bargaining. 

But  the  only  kind  of  collective  bargaining  offerd  in  the  Steel 
Strike  was  that  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor;  which  in- 
cluded in  its  twelve  demands,  the  reinstatement  of  every  trouble- 
maker who  had  been  discharged,  with  pay  for  all  his  idle  time ; 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


107 


the  establishmeir.  of  the  eight-hour  clay,  which  meant  an  entire 
revision  of  schedules  and  add'tional  wages  of  one  hundred  millions 
of  doi'ars ;  the  check-off  system  of  union  dues  whereby  the 
Corporation .  should  be  the  collecting  agent  for  the  labor  unions  ; 
promotion  by  union  rules,  rather  than  by  individual  merit  ;  tlie 
abolition  of  physical  examination,  so  that  no  one  could  tell  what 
contagious  disease  or  weakness  might  cause  a  fatal  accident  or  un- 
fit a  man  for  real  service. 

Bear  in  mind  that  these  particular  bargains  with  enormous 
dangers  both  to  person  and  to  property,  were  the  only  kind  offerd 
by  the  A.  F.  of  L. 

*  *  * 

I  am  deeply  convinct  that  the  Interchurch  Commission  is 
wholly  wrong  in  assuming  that  the  best  cure  of  grievances  can 
come  thru  coKective  bargaining.  The  best  adjustments  are  al- 
ways achievd  by  the  ingenious  contrivance  of  the  controlling  man- 
agement to  secure  a  higher  and  finer  success  in  the  business. 

Such  fine  examples  of  industrial  co-operation  as  are  obtaind 
in  the  Colorado  Fuel  and  Iron  Co.,  the  International  Harvester,  the 
Endicott-Johnson  Co.  and  hundreds  more  such  famous  modern 
samples  of  happy  co-operation,  are  not  achievd  by  collective  bar- 
ga'ning ;  but  are  conccivd  and  originated  by  the  managers  of  the 
property  and  offerd  to  the  workers  either  individually  or  in  groups; 
and  whi'e  the  help  of  the  workers  and  their  advice  is  honestly 
sought,  the  whole  scheme  of  betterment  emanates  from  the  con- 
trolling center  of  the  business  and  is  for  the  purpose  of  making 
the  business  successful  to  a  sti'l  greater  degree. 

The  same  method  of  unfair  shifting  of  a  phrase  is  met  in  the 
chapter  on  Social  Consequences  of  Arbitrary  Control.  Here  is 
where  they  affirm  that  the  Corporation  discharged  men  freejy  on 
account  of  "unionism." 

There  is  a  perfectly  innocent  kind  of  unionism  and  millions 
of  men  in  our  land"  feel  the  substantial  value  of  labor  unions  for 
the  purpose  of  binding  workmen  together  in  the  defense  of  their 
interests.  To  deny  men  employment  or  to  discharge  them  from 
employment  because  they  belong  to  unions  is  abhorrent  to  our 
genera'  American  sentiment,  and  is  denounced  by  the  Steel  Corpo- 
ration itself.  How  then  does  the  Report  accuse  the  Corporation  of 
discharging  workmen  for  unionism? 

It  is  done  by  a  shift  of  unionism  from  its  innocent  meaning 
into  a  unionism  that  is  militant  and  vicious.  For  many  years 
thousands  of  steel  workers  have  been  members  of  labor  unions 
without  prejudice  against  them;  but  when  the  Strike  was  being 
prepared  every  un'onist  was  summond  to  prepare  for  a  stiff  battlr 
atjainst  the  Corporation.  Those  who  yielded  to  the  incitement, 
whether  for  booty  or  for  glory,  became  soldiers  in  a  campaign  to 
break  down  the  well-known  policy  of  the  Corporation,  that  of 
running  its  own  business. 

*  *  * 

Now  in  case  of  such  discharge  it  was  perfectly  natural  for 
an  employe  to  say  he  was  discharged  for  unionism.    He  wouldn't 


108 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOiMA 


say  pugnacious  unionism  or  malevolent  unionism,  even  when  the 
Corporation  knew^  it  to  be  such;  but  the  unfairness  of  the  Report, 
rests  in  assuming  that  union  ism  v/as  always  innocent  and  in  con- 
demning the  Corporation  for  knowing  the  contrary. 

The  Corporation's  policy  of  running  its  own  business  upon 
sound  principles  of  industry  without  yieMing  to  the  popular  clamor 
for  new  experimicnts  in  the  line  of  Industrial  Democracy,  brought 
it  into  sharp  contrast  with  our  Government's  policies  during  the 
war  and  immediately  after.  When  our  Government  past  the 
Adamson  law  and  the  Clayton  Act  and  did  many  other  startling  in- 
novations at  the  behest  of  the  labor  union  leaders  of  our  country, 
and  when  our  neighbor,  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  under 
still  greater  pressure  of  labor  unionism  actually  made  unionism  a 
Government  "establishment"  just  as  they  make  the  church  an  estab- 
lishment, all  this  immense  prestige  and  pressure  against  the  Ameri- 
can principles  of  freedom  in  industry,  was  centerd  in  the  great 
Steel  Strike  against  the  U.  S.  Steel  Corporation.  But  in  spite 
of  it  all  the  Corporation  stood  fast  and  when  its  sturdy  resistance 
is  condemnd  by  our  Interchurch  Commission  I  can  say  only  this 
"Forgive  them  ;  for  they  know  not  what  they  do  !" 

LATER— ANOTHER  CRITICISM 

On  July  11,  1921,  there  was  releast  to  the  public  press  another 
"Review"  of  the  Interchurch  Report  on  the  Steel  Strike.  The  New 
York  World  states  that  it  is  a  volume  of  108  pages,  and  believes 
that  copies  can  be  secured  thru  the  offices  of  the  United  States 
Steel  Corporation,  71  Broadway,  New  York  City. 

THE  KANSAS  INDUSTRIAL  COURT  AND  THE 
OPEN  SHOP 

Our  bulletin  does  not  undertake  to  show  the  bearing  of  the 
new  industrial  court  in  Kansas  upon  the  general  question  of  the 
open  shop  in  American  industry.  Perhaps  it  will  later  be  found  to 
affect  the  industrial  situation  profoundly,  but  in  the  estimation 
of  students  of  industrial  problems,  especially  those  outside,  of  the 
state  of  Kansas,  and  detacht  in  their  relation  to  the  move,  this 
plan  is  still  in  the  experimental  stage.  The  experiment  is  being 
watcht  with  keen  interest. 

Governor  Allen  is  the  sponsor  for  the  idea,  and  his  personal 
and  official  influence  got  the  measure  incorporated  in  the  Kansas 
state  law.  He  has  explaind  the  plan  in  many  public  addresses 
within  and  without  the  state,  has  written  of  it  in  considerable  vol- 
ume, and  has  presented  the  matter  comprehensively  in  a  book  en- 
titled, "The  Party  of  the  Third  Part." 

This  third  party  is  the  public.     The  plan  aims  to  put  the 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


109 


public,  thru  governmental  agencies,  in  a  position  where  it  can 
and  will  assume  responsibility  for  dispensing  justice  even-handedly 
in  industry,  and  will  promptly  adjudicate  differences  which  may 
arise  between  capital  and  labor. 

Certain  corporations  and  employers  are  thought  to  be  antago- 
nistic to  this  plan.  Labor  leaders,  especially  those  at  the  head  of 
the  organized  miners  of  the  state,  have  resisted  it  vigorously.  The 
executive  head  of  this  miners'  organization  has,  as  this  is  written, 
just  now  been  convicted  in  the  courts  of  the  state  of  violation  of 
this  law  because  he  calld  a  strike  among  the  miners  recently,  and 
has  been  sentenced  to  the  payment  of  a  fine  and  a  term  of  im- 
prisonment. The  case  is  appeald  and  may  be  in  the  courts,  state 
and  federal,  for  some  time. 

In  the  meanwhile  the  plan  is  gaining  increasingly  strong  sup- 
port from  persons  in  the  ranks  of  organized  labor  as  well  as  from 
the  gtneral  public.  It  is  thought  that  the  present  prevalent  un- 
employment will  put  the  plan  to  the  severest  test  it  has  yet  experi- 
cnct. 

As  this  is  written,  the  latest  reports  show  that  31  cases  have 
been  hand'd  by  the  new  industrial  court,  29  of  which  have  been  on 
an  appeal  from  the  labor  side  of  the  industrial  controversy.  Of 
18  cases  where  wage  increase  was  at  issue  and  decision  has  been 
reacht,  15  have  resulted  in  an  increase.  The  court  aims  to  be  im- 
partial, and  has  power  to  determine  in  any  case  appeald  to  it 
whether  wages  or  working  conditions  in  any  particular  industry 
are  just  or  maintaind  at  a  standard  which  will  serve  best  the 
public  interest. 

The  kind  of  "shop"  this  plan  will  guarantee  may  be  open  or 
it  may  be  highly  unionized.  The  ultimate  bearing  upon  the  con- 
troversy with  which  our  debate  is  dealing  does  not  yet  appear. 
It  is  more  likely  to  introduce  a  "tertium  quid"  which  is  briefly 
discussed  in  the  closing  section  of  our  pamphlet. 

How  much  material  for  argument  either  side  may  gain  from 
this  move  in  Kansas  our  debaters  must  themselves  decide.  Either 
^:do  will  be  rewarded  by  study  of  the  Kansas  Plan. 


A  DEFINITION  AND  A  WARNING 

The  Bulletin  of  the  National  Manufacturers'  Association  for 
June  3rd,  1921,  reprints  an  editorial  from  the  NEW  YORK 
MAIL  of  March  15th,  in  comment  upon  the  report  of  the  Industrial 
Relations  Committee  of  the  Merchants*  Association  of  New  York 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


City.  It  invites  to  what  the  Bulletin  suggests  should  be  "a  long 
look  ahead." 

The  report  gives  a  e'ear,  incontrovertible  statement  of  what 
constitutes  the  genuine  "open  shop."  It  is  not  the  shop  of  those 
bourbon  employers  who  close  their  doors  to  all  union  labor,  nor 
the  shop  of  the  unions  which  deny  any  one  not  a  member  of  them 
the  right  to  work.  It  is  a  shop  where  union  and  non-iuiion  men 
may  work  side  by  side  Vv'ith  all  their  rights,  social,  economic  and 
political,  fully  safe-guarded.  And  it  must  prevail.  But  with  it 
lliere  must  go  some  scheme  of  employe  representation  that  will 
restore  int'mate  contact  ])et\veen  management  and  workers.  Such 
representation  will  gi\'e  the  latter  a  desirable  responsibility  for 
increast  i^'oduction  and  efficiency. 

Becau.'e  of  present  conditions  the  future  is  largely  in  the  hands 
of  the  emp'oyers.  If  they  should  misuse  their  chance,  as  the  labor 
forces  did  during  the  emergency  of  war,  they  would  incur  public 
disapproval  as  thoroly  as  labor  did.  It  will  pay  them  to  look  a 
long  way  ahead  so  that  the  working  people  of  this  country  who  arc 
essentially  aposties  of  enlightend  individualism,  may  not  be  driven 
into  the  arms  of  those  who  advocate  the  socialism  of  industry. 

MR.  DOGLEY'S  REiMARKS  ON  THE  OPEN  SHOP 

Everybody  knovvs  Mr.  Dooley.  He  has  made  remarks  upon 
l)retty  nearly  every  ejuestion  and  important  event  in  recent  Ameri- 
can liistory.  He  b.as  .^poktn  at  length  to  his  friend  Hennessey  on 
the  industrial  situation,  and  this  is  the  gist  of  what  he  has  to  say 
al)OUt  the  open  shop  : 

"'What's  a'l  this  that's  in  the  papers  about  the  open  shop?' 
askt  Mr.  Hennessey. 

"'Why.  don't  ye  knov/?'  said  Mr.  Doolcy.  'Really,  I'm  sur- 
prized at  ycr  ignorance,  Hinnissey.  What  is  th'  open  shop?  Sure, 
'tis  where  they  kape  the  dors  open  to  accommodate  th'  constant 
stream  a\'  min  conrin'  in  t'  take  jobs  cheaper  than  th'  min  what 
has  th'  jobs.  'Tis  like  this,  Hinnisey  :  Suppose  wan  av  these  free- 
born  citizens  is  workin'  in  an  open  shop  f'r  th'  princely  wages  av 
wan  large  iron  dollar  a  day  av  tin  hour.  Along  comes  anither  son 
av  gun  and  he  sez  t'  th'  boss,,  "Oi  think  Oi  could  handle  th'  job 
nice'y  f'r  ninety  cints."  "vSure,"  sez  th'  boss,  an  th'  wan  dollar 
man  gets  out  into  th'  crool  woruld  t'  exercise  hiz  inalienal^le  roiglits 
as  a  freeborn  American  citizen  an'  scab  on  some  other  poor  devil. 
An'  so  it  goes  on,  Hinnissey.  An'  who  gits  th'  benefit?  Thrue,  it 
saves  th'  boss  money,  but  he  don't  care  no  more  f'r  money  thin  he 
does  f'r  his  right  cy. 

"It's  all  principle  wid  him.  He  hates  t'  see  men  robl)ed  av 
their  independence.  They  must  have  their  independence,  regard- 
less av  anything  else.' 

"  'But,'  said  Mr.  Hennessey,  'these  open-shop  min  ye  menshun 
say  they  are  f'r  unions  iv  properly  conducted.' 

"  'Sure,'  said  Mr.  Dooley,  'iv  properly  conducted.  An'  there 
we  are:  An'  how  would  they  have  thim  conducted?    No  strikes. 


THE  OPEN  SHOP  111 


n,.  rules,  no  contracts,  no  scales,  hardly  iny  wages,  an'  dam  few 
n-!i?n;)c  rs.'  " 

UNCLASSIFIED  QUOTATIONS 

At  the  "American  Idea  Convention,"  Chicago,  January,  1921  : 
An  employer :  "It  is  unpopular  to  say  that  I  do  not  helieve  in 
the  open  shop,  but  I  confess  I  do  not  know  what  the  open  shop 
means.  To  my  mind  it  is  a  good  deal  of  a  question  of  non-union 
shop  or  unionized  shop,  and  I  hate  to  be  a  hypocrite  under  a 
resolution  or  anything  else,  or  to  vote  or  declare  in  favor  of 
open  shop  when  my  own  policy  is  not  to  carry  that  out,  but  to  hit 
the  head  of  the  radical  in  my  shop  whenever  he  puts  it  up." 

From  the  Minnesota  Banker:  "The  closed  shop  is  zealously 
fought  for  by  the  radical  wing  of  labor  organization.  The  open 
shop  can  be  the  most  readily  brought  about  by  the  elimina- 
tion   of    this    element    as    a    power    in    organized  labor. 

*  The  open  shop  argument  must  be  addrest,  therefore,  to 
the  better  sense  and  judgment  of  the  conservative  in  organized 
labor.  *  *  *  Where  the  radical  element  is  too  strongly  in- 
t rendu,  there  is,  of  course,  but  one  final  thing  to  do,  and  that 
is  to  beat  them  by  force.  They  must  be  lockt  out  and  lickt  until 
the  conservatives  see  the  light.      *    *    *  harsher  method, 

bowever,  should  not  be  employd  until  ail  other  plans  have  faild." 

From  the  Nation,  April  13th,  1921  :  'Tn  brief,  the  open  shop 
drive  is  for  the  destruction  of  unionism  through  elimination  of  its 
most  vital  weapon,  collective  i)argaining.  *  *  *  -^^'e  have  come, 
therefore,  to  a  turning  point  in  industrial  policy.  If  the  people 
of  America  want  to  deprive  the  wage  earner  of  the  small  sh^^c 
in  the  control  of  industry — and  thus  of  his  own  life — that  he 
has  obtaind  thru  organization,  they  have  that  right ;  but  they 
ought  to  know  that  they  are  doing  it.  *  *  *  If  they  want  the 
term  "American  Plan"  to  become  synonymous  with  economic 
czarism,  they  have  that  right ;  but  they  ought  to  stop  talking 
about  the  closed  or  the  open  shop,  and,  facing  realities,  speak  in- 
stead of  the  union  or  the  anti-union  shop.  They  ought  to  call,  a 
spade  a  spade,  a  club  a  club,  a  knave  a  knave.  They  ought  to 
know  that  they  are  getting  not  an  open  shop,  openly  arrivd  at, 
but  an  anti-union  shop  secretly  attaind." 

William  Leavitt  Stoddard,  in  Industrial  Management,  June. 
1921 :  "At  last  reports  some  540  employers'  organizations  in 
nearly  all  the  stages  were  actively  promoting  open  shop  advertising 
and  propaganda ;  some  of  the  largest  groups  of  organized  manu- 
facturers   *    *    *    and  many  state  associations  of  manufacturers, 


112  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United  States  and  a  majority 
of  the  local  chambers  of  commerce  are  advocating  the  open  shop  ; 
there  are  said  to  be,  further,  nearly  500  purely  open  shop  associa- 
tions." 

Same :  "This  brings  us  to  the  strongest  portion  of  the  case 
for  the  open  shop,  namely,  the  statement  of  employers  that  any 
shop  other  than  the  open  shop  means  the  closed  union  shop,  that 
is,  a  shop  in  which  non-union  employes  may  not  work." 

Same:  "It  would  be  idle  to  deny  that  the  open  shop  move- 
ment is  directed  against  the  unions.  It  is.  It  is  directed,  how- 
ever, not  against  their  existence,  but  against  their  demand  that 
they  shall  be  allowd  to  represent  all  labor.  All  labor  in  the 
United  States  is  far  from  being  organized.  *  *  *  jy^^  open 
shop  does  not  forbid  collective  agreements;  *  *  *  open 
shop  appears  to  be  a  perfectly  fair  and  even-handed  proposal.  The 
fact  that  well  over  85  percent  of  American  industry  is  run  on 
open  shop  principles  would  seem  to  indicate  that  there  is  plenty 
of  room  in  this  country  for  working  out  the  great  experiment 
of  peace  between  capital  and  labor  without  declaring  lor  the 
closed  union  shop  till  the  trade  unions  are  numerous  enough  to 
make  such  a  policy  the  only  way  of  dealing  with  employes.  That 
time  is  remote." 

(Read  this  entire  article  in  June  number  of  Industrial  Man- 
agement.) 

From  a  Bil'board  advocating  the  open  shop,  Tacoma,  Wash- 
ington :  "Do  not  associate  with  this  name  an  attempt  to  disguise 
under  a  cloak  of  patriotism  a  deeper  scheme  of  capitalistic  domina- 
tion or  an  organized  effort  to  destroy  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  the  workingman.  The  meaning  of  the  name  is  as  simple 
as  the  name  itself.  It  means  that  the  basic  right  given  to  every 
man  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  will  be  the  fun- 
damental rule  guiding  the  treatment  and  rights  of  the  worker 
employd  by  the  company  operating  under  the  plan." 

Ralph  E.  Fox,  Industrial  Management,  January,  1921  :  "Open 
shops  wil;  not  become  predominant  iinle<ss  associatlions  which 
sponsor  them  are  properly  motivated.  Therefore  every  open  shop 
association  should,  before  determining  upon  the  means  to  be  used, 
be  absolute^  positive  as  to  its  motives  as  an  association ;  .md 
every  individual  member  of  it  must  likewise  be  absolutely  positive 
of  his  motives  as  an  individual  employer  and  as  a  part  of  the 
association  as  such.  To  reiterate :  open  shops  are  expressions  of 
motives,  and,  like  motives,  are  but  means  to  ends,  and  meritorio.is 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


113 


according  to  the  ends  to  which  they  lead." 

Ernest  G.  Draper,  President,  American  Creosoting  Company,  in 
the  Weekly  Review,  January  12th,  1921  :  "It  is  no  crime  to  oppose 
organized  labor,  provided  the  methods  used  are  legitimate.  It 
may  seem  a  wise  course  to  many  to  oppose  it  and  to  fight  its 
growth  with  all  the  might  that  can  be  musterd.  Some  of  us  will 
conceive  such  a  course  as  a  terrible  mistake.  *  *  *  This  is 
a  free  country,  however,  and  our  opinions  are  not  sacrosanct  just 
because  they  are  our  own.  But  do  not  let  us  permit  any  man  or 
any  group  of  men  to  cloud  the  issue.  If  there  is  to  be  a  fight, 
let  it  be  a  fair  fight  with  fair  weapons.  Otherwise  it  an 
underhand,  dirty  fight,  vicious  to  the  last  degree,  and  ultinic^lely 
bound  to  react  with  disastrous  effect  upon  a'l  employers,  whether 
they  are  responsible  for  it  or  not." 

From  Bulletin  of  Industrial  Information  Service.  Inc.  Bos- 
ton, Mass.,  June  3,  1920:  "A  tendency  either  toward  the  closed 
union  shop  or  toward  the  closed  non-union  shop  is  p'-cscnt  iii 
every  open  shop." 

From  resolutions  adopted  at  the  16th  annual  meeting  of  rhc 
Associated  Employers  of  Indianapolis.  Inc. :  "Resolved,  That  the 
open  shop  is  the  only  fair  basis  of  industrial  relationships  for  the 
public  at  large,  for  employer  and  for  employe.  The  principle  of 
the  open  shop  guarantees  to  all  citizens  the  free  and  unrestricted 
exercise  of  their  right  to  work  when,  where,  and  as  their  in- 
dividual interests  may  dictate  or  require.  The  door  of  equal 
opportunity  is  thus  opened  to  all  citizens  who  earn  a  liv'ng  by 
hand  or  brain,  and  they  are  not  subject  to  arbitrary  decisions  of 
labor  union  agitators,  or  to  false  or  uneconomic  rules  of  conduct." 

A  writer  in  the  Babson  Institute,  Boston.  Alass.  ;  "One  of  the 
most  serious  defects  in  the  union  movement  today  is  the  unwill- 
ingness to  incorporate  or  in  some  other  way  assume  moral  and 
financial  responsibility  for  its  acts.  *  *  *  Public  sentiment  is 
more  and  more  crystallizing  in  the  idea  of  the  reasonableness  of 
assuming  responsibility  when  performing  acts,  and  it  is  difficult 
to  see  how  American  labor  can  stand  against  such  a  principle 
very  much  longer.  A  clearing  up  of  this  matter,  the  assumption 
by  labor  organizations  of  such  responsibilities,  the  right  to  sue 
and  be  sued,  would  go  far  toward  bringing  capital  and  labor  upon 
common  ground." 

From  "Industrial  Facts,"  Kirby  Page:  "The  theory  of  the 
employers'  open  shop  is  that  no  discrimination  shall  be  made 
against  any  man  because  of  membership  or  non-membership  in  a 


114 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


labor  union.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  some  employers  arc 
using  the  open  shop  as  a  weapon  against  union  men  and  are  seek- 
ing, usually  secrct'y,  to  destroy  the  power  of  labor  unions." 

Same:  "In  theory  many  employers  grant  tlie  right  of  men  to 
organize  in  unions,  in  practice  many  of  these  men  are  seeking 
vigorously  to  make  the  unions  weak  and  ineffective.  The  attitude 
of  many  employers  is  we'd  described  by  Ray  Stannard  Baker: 
'"\'cs,  we  believe  in  unionism,  but  damn  the  unions.'  " 

Ex-President  Taft,  quoted  in  a  newspaper  interview  :  "It  is 
the  custom  of  Bourbon  employers  engaged  in  fight'ng  labor 
unionism  to  the  death  to  call  a  closed  non-union  shop  an  open  shop, 
and  to  call  the  movement  to  kill  unionism  an  open  shop  mo\e- 
ment.    This  is  a  deceitful  misuse  of  the  term." 

Committee  011  Industrial  Ivelations,  Merchants'  Associati:)n 
(.>t  New  York:  Your  cojnmittee  deplores  tlie  disposition  on  tb.e 
part  of  some  employers  who  are  using  the  term  'open  sbf.p'  t'l 
work  toward  a  condition  of  the  closed  non-union  shop  by  dis- 
criminating against  union  men.  It  likewise  regrets  that  the  opera- 
tion of  the  closed  union  shop  frequently  results  in  restriction  ot 
output  and  limitation  of  available  labor  supply." 

National  Catholic  Welfare  Council:  "The  'open  shop'  drive 
masks  under  such  names  as  'The  American  Plan'  and  hides  be- 
liind  the  pretense  of  American  freedom.  Yet  its  real  purpose  is 
to  destroy  all  effective  labor  unions,  and  thus  subject  the  working 
people  to  the  complete  domination  of  the  employers." 

Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America :  "  * 
*  *  a  campaign  is  being  conducted  for  the  open  shop  policy — the 
so-calld  American  Plan  of  Employment.  These  terms  are  now 
being  frequently  used  to  designate  establishments  that  are  defi- 
nitely anti-union.  Obviously  a  shop  of  this  kind  is  not  an  open 
shop  but  a  closed  shop— closed  against  members  of  labor  unions." 

Louis  D.  Brandeis,  now  Justice  of  the  U.  S.  Supreme  Court  : 
"To  suggest  that  labor  unions  can  be  effective  if  organized  on  less 
tlian  a  national  scale  seems  to  ignore  entirely  the  facts  and  trend 
of  present-day  American  business." 

United  States  Senate  Commission  on  Steel  Strike:  "The  Com- 
nuttee  is  agreed  that  the  principle  of  collective  bargaining  is  a 
right  of  men  working  in  industry." 

Debaters  on  both  sides  may  wish  to  think  over  such  questions 
as  these :  Is  not  the  principle  of  the  open  shop  the  principle  of 
free  trade  in  commerce i^    How  far  can  employers  go  in  insisting 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


115 


u;)on  application  of  the  principle  in  one  field  when  the}-  deny 
it  in  the  other? 

How  far  do  employers  practise  the  principle  of  the  open  shop 
m  their  relations  with  each  other?  Do  they  maintain  the  free  and 
unrestricted  right  of  each  industrial  management  to  control  its 
own  affairs? 

Is  the  peril  that  the  lahor  market  shall  be  cornerd  and  domi- 
nated by  ambitious  labor  leaders  any  more  real  than  that  parti- 
cular industrial  managers  sha'l  gain  and  use  an  artificial  power  in 
their  field?  If  natural  laws  safeguard  society  against  the  latter, 
what  hinders  their  rendering  the  same  service  against^  labor  domi- 
11  at  ion  ? 

Is  it  not  a  fact  that  100  percent  union  labor  is  the  ambit  on 
of  every  labor  union?  If  and  when  this  end  is  achievd,  will  not 
the  union  shop  control  that  industry  as  arbitrarily  and  as  irre- 
sponsibly as  an  unrestricted  capitalistic  management  controls  cer- 
tan  industrial  establishments  now? 


BRIEF  DIGESTS 

Social  antagonisms  may  be  due  to  defective  organization  of 
society  rather  than  to  the  faults  of  the  antagonists. 

Every  question  must  u'timately  be  settled  by  the  interests  of 
society  as  a  whole. 

Labor  unions  defend  the  flat  wage  rate  not  because  it  is  just, 
fair,  or  expedient,  but  to  prevent  dissention  among  themselves. 

With  the  negative  the  problem  of  unemployment  is  the  chief 
difficulty, — the  chief  terror.  The  affirmative  are  absolutely  silent 
al)out  this  and  yet  claim  to  be  fully  and  fairly  debating  the  ques- 
tion. 

Labor  claims  that  if  it  had  the  public  at  its  mercy  it  woidd 
never  abuse  such  power.  When  were  there  ever  a  class  of  lui- 
man  beings  who  could  be  trusted  with  such  power? 

The  right  of  labor  to  bargain  collectively  is  uni\crsally  ad- 
milted,  ihit  how  is  collective  bargaining  possible  without  th-.- 
clt)sed  shop?    What  has  labor  to  bargain  with? 

The  Open  and  the  Closed  Shop  are  not  necessarily  oi)])osites. 
The  closed  shop  is  closed  to  all  but  members  of  labor  unions.  An 
open  shop  is  usually  open  to  all  but  sometimes  not  to  union  men. 
Unless  it  is  open  .to  all  it  is  of  course  not  open. 

The  affirmative  assume  that  a'l  employers  are  lionest  and  fair 
with  their-  employes.    This  is  practically  never  the  case.  Those 


116  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


who  would  be  fair  have  to  compete  with  those  who  are  not  and 
must  do  substantially  the  same  things. 

It  is  not  expected  or  intended  that  Labor  will  always  submit 
to  present  rules  and  practises  which  are  forced  upon  it  by  em- 
ployers. Labor  only  fights  back  in  self  defense.  The  ultimate 
responsibility  for  public  injury  rests  upon  those  who  oppress  labor. 

Why  should  laborer  A,  who  can  do  more  and  better  work  than 
laborer  B,  be  willing  to  work  for  the  same  wages?  It  is  clearly 
a  sacrifice  for  A,  but  he  does  it  for  the  sake  of  the  cause.  The 
spirit  is  very  different  from  that  of  the  average  employer. 

That  the  efficient,  industrious,  skillful  laborer  should  be  paid 
what  he  actually  earns ;  and  that  the  public  should  not  be  com- 
peld  to  pay  the  same  wages  to  a  careless,  incompetent  laborer  is 
as  clear  as  anything  can  be.  The  flat  wage  rate  is  an  incubus  on 
the  unions. 

The  affirmative  fairly  sobs  with  sympathy  for  the  members 
of  the  union  who  they  say  are  slaves,  betrayd  and  misdirected  by 
their  leaders.  But  all  the  officials  of  unions  are  elected  by  the 
entire  membership  who  can  retire  them  at  any  t"me.  .Some 
tragedies  have  their  comic  side. 

We  can  only  judge  the  closed  shop  by  what  it  aims  at,  what 
it  would  do  if  it  could.  It  is  a  patent  fact,  absolutely  undeniable, 
that  the  closed  shop  interferes  with  the  management,  which  must 
do  as  the  employes  say  or  quit  business.  The  utter  fol'y  and 
futility  of  this  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  average  laborers  are 
not  competent  to  manage  the  business;  they  would  look  after  their 
own  selfish  interests,  not  that  of  the  business. 

It  is  amusing  how  the  opponents  of  the  closed  shop  complain 
so  bitterly  of  its  tyranny  to  the  poor  misguided  workmen.  Even 
if  it  were  tyrannical  it  might  be  less  so  than  an  unrestricted  em- 
ployer. 

Employers  sometimes  boast  that  they  invariably  dismiss  an 
employe  who  asks  for  an  increase  of  wages.  Such  a  request  i.> 
deemd  a  reflection  on  the  employer's  fairness.  No  employer  is 
pleased  with  such  requests. 

If  the  opponents  of  the  closed  shop  are  really  sincere  in  the 
belief  that  it  entails  so  many  intolerable  abuses,  why  don't  the} 
oppose  and  seek  to  remedy  such  abuses  instead  of  making  them  a 
pretext  for  trying  to  destroy  the  only  defense  labor  has  that  has 
ever  accomplisht  anything  worth  while. 

The  negative  labor  under  a  great  difficulty  in  that  all  the  in- 
terests and  investments  of  an  ordinary  member  of  a  union  are 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


117 


temporary,  often  extremely  so,  while  the  employer's  interests — 
his  investments  in  buildings,  machinery,  reputation  of  his  busi- 
ness are  permanent  in  their  nature ;  he  cannot  move  av^^ay.  The 
laborer  has  nothing  of  this  kind  to  lose.  The  parties  to  such  "col- 
lective bargaining"  are  so  grossly  unequal  in  their  relations  to 
the  work  that  it  can  hardly  be  calld  bargaining  at  all. 

The  closed  shop  must  ultimately  destroy  itself  for  under  it  the 
business  is  controld  almost  entirely  by  the  workmen.  Of  course 
reasonable  men  will  not  invest  their  savings  in  a  business  they 
cannot  control.  Russia  is  furnishing  us  an  illustration  of  how  the 
control  of  the  business  by  the  workmen  turns  out.  Workmen  sel- 
dom appreciate  the  value  of  good  management  and  often  antago- 
nize it. 

It  is  evident  that  the  closed  shop  facilitates  strikes.  If  only 
half  of  the  employes  in  a  shop  were  union  labor  a  strike  by  them 
would  be  futile.  The  closed  shop  would  be  the  only  way  that  labor 
could  get  unanimity. 

No  one  can  deny  tliat  the  labor  unions  have  grossly  abused 
the  power  the  closed  shop  gives  them.  They  have  struck  for  all 
sorts  of  frivolous  reasons.  They  have  even  struck  to  settle  dis- 
putes between  two  lalior  unions,  thereby  punishing  their  employers 
and  the  public  for  what  they  had  no  part  whatever  in.  "Sympa- 
thetic" strikes  are  very  common  where  employes  punish  their  em- 
ployers because  some  other  employer  docs  not  do  to  suit  them. 
It  is  this  that  compels  employers  to  unite. 

How  does  labor  bargain?  If  the  employer  refuses  to  pay  what 
the  laborer  demands,  what  can  the  laborer  do  but  quit,  i.  e.  strike? 
This  is  a  very  serious  matter ;  he  does  not  know  where  he  can 
get  work  again.  If  he  strikes  alone  he  merely  loses  his  job.  One 
man  bargaining  alone  has  no  show  whatever ;  the  employer  has  all 
the  advantage.  A  closed  shop  is  merely  a  place  where  men  re- 
fuse to  work  with  traitors  to  their  fellow  workmen.  In  a  closed 
shop  the  single  workman  does  not  strike  alone ;  but  in  his  griev- 
ance he  must  get  the  support  of  a  majority  of  his  fellows. 

A  labor  union  is  nothing  in  the  world  but  an  organization  to 
facilitate  "collective  bargaining." 

The  justice  and  expediency  of  collective  bargaining  are  no 
longer  debatable;  even  the  affirmative  profess  to  approve  it,  but 
are  opposed  to  any  method  of  making  it  effective. 

Employers  often  demand  that  they  should  deal  with  their  own 
men  directly,  and  object  to  "walking  delegates."  The  employer 
can  command  the  best  argumentative  ability  that  money  can  get. 


118 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


and  is  himself  much  more  skilful  and  better  informd  than  the  em- 
ploye. The  employe  is  no  match  for  him.  The  union  employs  the 
best  talent  it  can  to  represent  it  in  the  debate  with  the  employer. 
Tlie  employer  does  exactly  the  same  thing  when  he  goes  into  court. 

The  average  laborer  is  no  match  for  the  employer  or  his  agent 
in  argument ;  their  bargaining  cannot  be  on  equal  terms.  The 
union  gives  the  laborer  also  an  agent  more  sk'lful  than  himself. 
The  company  has  representatives  ;  if  they  prove  unsatisfactory 
they  are  dismist.  Why  should  not  the  employe  have  exactly  tlic 
same  privilege? 

Advocates  of  the  open  shop  b.a\-e  mu:h  to  say  about  "freedom 
of  contract."  There  m.ay  be  legal  freedom  but  never  ecor.orn'c 
freedom.  The  sole  aim  of  the  labor  union  is  to  defend  laborers 
who  are  being  wrongd  as  to  wages  and  conditions  of  labor.  When 
a  m.an's  family  is  starving  he  will  sign  any  contract  that  will  give 
them  bread.  The  laborer,  standing  alone,  is  always  more  or  less 
between  the  alternatives,  "Work  or  Starve."  This  is  the  "free- 
dom of  contract"  the  affirmative  advocate! 

"The  open  shop  policy  guarantees  to  every  laborer  the  right 
to  \\ork  when,  where,  and  for  what  they  please."  It  would  be 
hard  to  state  a  more  flagrant  untruth.  It  is  only  very  partially 
true  in  the  case  of  the  few  workmen  who  can  afford  to  drop  an 
unsatisfactory  job  with  no  other  :n  sight;  who  have  sufficient  sur- 
plus to  support  their  families  and  pay  railway  fares  and  hotel 
biils  vvhile  seeking  a  nev/  joh.  The  terrible  cost  and  risk  of  un- 
employment nuist  always  restrain  the  workman  in  bargaining  witli 
his  employer. 

The  war  conditions  and  favor  of  President  Wilson  gave  the 
unions  a  great  opportunity  which  they  faild  to  improve.  They 
profiteerd  to  the  limit.  They  made  and  enforced  all  sorts  of  out- 
rageous ru.es.  One  laborer  made  a  man  pay  him  $2.60  for  aliout 
15  minutes  work,  and  claimd  that  the  union  would  fine  $25  if  he 
didn't.  They  had  a  rule  that  no  time  less  than  an  hour  should  be 
counted.  The  closed  shop  gives  the  union  a  power  which  it  has 
abused,  and  it  can  give  no  guaranty  that  it  would  not  ab.vays  abuse 
it. 

Hovv'  can  a  union  exist  without  the  closed  shop?  The  affir- 
mative is  silent  on  this.  That  the  closed  shop  involves  sonie 
wrongs  might  be  admitted ;  but  they  are  far  more  than  compen- 
sated for  by  the  benefit  the  unions  are  to  the  laborers  and  to 
society. 

The  affirmative  profess  to   believe  in  collective  bargaining 


THE  OPEN  SHOP  119 

while  opposing  the  closed  shop  which  only  makes  it  possible.  This 
utterly  vitiates  all  their  reasoning. 

Why  don't  the  affirmative  come  out  squarely  and  admit  that 
they  wish  things  fixt  so  the  laborer  will  have  to  take  whatever  pit- 
tance the  employer  sees  fit  to  offer. 

Is  it  labor's  fault  that  the  maintenance  of  the  closed  shop  is 
its  only  defense  against  unjust  wages.  Those  in  power  have 
taken  away  every  other  defense  and  now  are  trying  to  take  away 
this.    Labor  would  gladly  use  another  weapon  if  it  had  it. 

The  fundamental  trouble  with  the  whole  problem  of  the 
relations  of  Capital  to  Labor  is  that  all  business  is  conducted 
primarily  for  profits  and  only  incidentally  for  service.  Suc- 
cess in  business  is  measured  solely  by  profits;  no  "great"  busi- 
ness man  is  poor.  In  all  the  professions  we  have  the  opposite. 
No  one-  could  be  a  "great"  physician  unless  he  had  cured  pa- 
tients, how  much  wealth  he  had  accumulated  is  irrelevant.  A 
"great"  lawyer  has  won  cases, — has  served  his  clients.  A  "great" 
scientist  or  inventor  gets  fame  by  useful  discoveries.  And  so 
with  all  the  professions, — teacher,  preacher,  engineer,  scholar, 
artist,  musician,  artisan,  laborer, — greatness  or  success  is  meas- 
ured by  service.  But  there  are  few  successful  business  men  who 
have  rendered  anything  like  an  equivalent  to  society  for  the 
wealth  they  have  accumulated;  many  deny  any  obligation  to  do 
so. 

Business  will  not  submit  to  having  its  profits  regulated,  or 
even  known  by  the  public.  It  claims  the  right  to  "charge  all  the 
traflFic  will  bear".  A  large  part  of  profits  come  from  laborers 
and  so  is  practically  a  rebate  from  wages  paid.  It  is  true  that 
many  business  men  respect  the  Rotarian  motto,  "He  profits 
most  who  serves  best",  and  that  profits  are  often  a  meager  wage, 
yet  the  fact  remains  that  the  common  business  motive  is  pro- 
fits instead  of  service.  Just  so  far  as  this  is  true  the  argument 
of  the  affirmative  is  vitiated.  The  employer  cannot  demand  that 
the  laborer  shall  respect  the  public  interest  unless  he  does  so 
himself.  And  he  often  forgets  this  when  he  is  making  prices 
for  the  public  to  pay. 

BOTH  SIDES  OF  THE  QUESTION 

This  is  not  a  one-sided  question.  It  is  not  an  academic 
question.  Theories  might  settle  the  business  in  short  order. 
But  all  debaters  should  realize  the  intensely  practical  character 


120  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


of  the  issue.  While  they  compel  one  another  to  stand  firmly 
upon  principles,  yet  each  side  must  remember  that  principles 
must  be  applied  to  be  worth  anything  even  as  principles.  How- 
ever beautiful  they  may  appear  in  theory,  they  are  not  sound 
unless  they  can  be  made  to  work. 

Both  Sides  Weak 

The  weakness  of  both  sides  is  that  heat  and  passion  and 
prejudice  and  class  interests  have  been  and  are  being  employd 
to  win  partisan  ends.  Two  parties  in  our  industrial  scheme  are 
at  war.  Some  of  the  leaders,  indeed,  maintain  that  the  only  way 
to  settle  the  business  is  to  turn  each  party  loose  and  let  them 
fight  it  out  to  the  finish.  One  or  the  other  is  bound  to  h^e  its 
way,  and  the  question  will  never  be  settld  to  stay  settld  until 
one  or  the  other  is  lickt,  so  thoroly  lickt  that  both  sides  know 
full  well  just  what  has  happend  to  them. 

Tho  those  who  are  prepard  to  take  this  extreme  stand  are 
few,  the  inevitableness  of  the  conflict  seems  not  less  conclusive 
to  many  others.  It  would  be  a  fine  thing  if  some  powerful  um- 
pire m'ght  step  in,  make  both  sides  be  good,  and  thus  end  the 
conflict.  But  who  and  where  is  the  umpire?  The  public!  How 
is  the  public  to  act?  How  is  it  even  to  make  up  its  mind  with 
sufficient  clearness  to  serve  as  required? 

Let  the  public  act  through  the  Government.  But  the  gov- 
ernmental agencies  are  themselves  pulld  and  hauld  now  this 
way,  now  that.  Each  side  accuses  them  of  favoritism  toward 
their  opponents.  And  Government  is  not  strong  enough,  or 
far  enough  removd  from  these  opposing  influences,  to  follow 
a  consistent  course.  The  machinery  of  government  is  one  of  the 
b'ggest  stakes  for  which  the  contestants  on  either  side  strive. 

We  have  a  beautiful  theory  that  the  public  is  an  independent 
third  party  in  the  industrial  conflict,  and  that  the  whole  business 
might  be  straightend  out  if  this  third  party  would  only  step  in 
and  tell  each  of  the  fighters  just  where  he  gets  on  and  where  he 
gets  ofif.  But  the  disconcerting  fact  is  that  in  the  case  of  a  ques- 
tion of  universal  significance  like  this,  the  public  as  an  indepen- 
dent and  selfdetermining  unit  disappears.  Nobody  can  find  it. 
We  are  all  lined  up  on  one  side  or  the  other.  If  we  are  not 
directly  classified  as  either  employers  or  employes,  our  situation 
identifies  us  so  closely  with  one  side  or  the  other  that  rarely 
can  we  control  our  sympathies  judicially. 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


121 


Who  Says  It? 

To  many  of  us  it  means  all  the  difference  in  the  world  who 
makes  a  given  statement  bearing  on  a  question  like  this.  Does 
Mr.  Gompers  say  it?  Then  it  is  law  and  gospel  to  certain 
partisans  on  his  side,  and  by  the  same  token  it  is  devlish  lie 
in  the  estimation  of  partisans  who  do  not  like  his  side  and  his 
crowd.  Does  Judge  Gary  say  it?  Then,  what  wisdom  and 
statesmanship!  Or,  some  more  bawling  of  the  chief  spokes- 
man of  the  reactionary  crowd! 

You  have  heard  of  the  small  boy  who  fell  into  a  contro- 
versy with  his  play-fellow,  and  who  clincht  his  argument  by  the 
assurance  that  his  father  said  so  and  so  was  true.  His  opponent 
was  presumptuous  enough  to  discount  the  statement  in  spite  of 
that  fact.  Then  the  youngster's  reason  and  passion  reacht  their 
highest  flight  is  the  declaration  that  "Whatever  my  papa  says 
is  so,  even  it  'taint  so!" 

The  merits  of  this  question  have  been  greatly  overshadowd 
by  appeals  to  authority.  Because  Mr.  Gompers  has  been  for 
forty  years  the  undisputed  leader  of  the  millions  of  organized 
labor  in  the  United  States,  his  is  esteemd  by  many  to  be  the 
final  word  on  a  subject  like  this.  Or,  because  Judge  Gary  has 
been  for  twenty  years  the  head  of  the  largest  industrial  institu- 
tion of  the  land,  and  is  lookt  up  to  by  hosts  of  aspiring  young 
business  men  as  the  paragon  of  all  which  "success"  points  to, 
his  word  is  for  others  not  less  conclusive. 

Perhaps  the  debaters  on  both  sides  will  be  inclined  to  work 
this  argument  to  the  limit,  to  quote  authorities  as  the  final  word. 
Both  will,  however,  find  that  the  limit  is  soon  reacht.  This  is 
a  question  in  which  all  of  us  are  interested,  and  neither  the  op- 
posing debaters,  nor  the  judges,  nor  the  audience  attending  our 
debates,  will  be  finally  convinct  by  emphaflc  words  quoted  from 
men  of  high-sounding  names. 

Both  Sides  Strong 

I  he  strength  of  each  side  is  its  final  appeal  to  the  good 
of  the  public.  To  be  sure,  each  believes  that  the  good  of  the 
public  demands  the  triumph  of  his  party  and  the  vindication 
of  his  contention.  But  each  has  again  and  again  yielded  to  and 
ardently  declard  the  principle  that  the  public  good  should  pre- 
vail. 

In  short,  neither  blatant  autocracy  nor  class-mad  Bloshe- 


122 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


vism  guides  the  parties  to  the  controversy.  In  the  heat  of  the 
contest  there  has  been  much  flinging  of  charges  to  one  effect 
or  the  other.  But  debaters  who  resort  to  such  petty  devices  will 
do  themselves  little  credit.  American  labor  is  not  gone  Bolshe- 
vistic. No  authoritative  leader  proposes  the  carrying  of  the 
contest  to  a  point  where  his  class  shall  absolutely  and  violently 
dominate.  On  the  contrary  part,  no  responsible  employer  as- 
pires to  emulate  the  example  of  theHapsburgs  and  Hohenzoll- 
erns. 

Many  an  employer  practices  and  justifies  an  autocracy 
which  is  very  distasteful  and  seems  reprehensible  to  the  average 
American  citizen.  Many  a  labor  leader  appeals  to  class  pre- 
judice in  the  effort  to  rally  working  people  to  his  cause,  which 
unimpassiond  citizens  must  greatly  deplore.  But  feverish  at- 
tempts to  make  it  appear  that  either  absolute  industrial  auto- 
cracy or  Bolshevistic  communism  is  about  to  be  "put  over"  on 
the  American  people,  is  clap-trap  which  all  our  debaters  should 
out  of  self-respect  avoid. 

The  appeal  of  both  sides  to  patriotism,  and  their  manifest 
loyalty  to  American  ideals  and  American  institutions,  should 
be  accepted.  It  is  quite  the  privilege  of  either  side  to  maintain 
that  its  program  will  sustain  those  institutions  best  and  tend 
most  directly  to  realize  those  ideals.  But  for  either  to  charge 
the  other  with  malicious  and  determind  efforts  to  wreck  our 
American  society  is  unworthy  of  them  and  should  be  rebuked 
by  those  to  whom  such  appeals  are  addrest. 

It  is  true  that  certain  individuals  identified  with  both  sides 
are  enemies  of  Americanism.  Some  few  of  them  openly  declare 
that  they  are,  that  they  wish  to  demolish  the  whole  structure 
which  has  been  erected  by  the  past,  but  those  few  do  not  count 
for  the  purposes  of  l^e  present  discussion,  and  it  is  not  worth 
while  for  either  side  to  refer  to  them.  Where  the  pot  is  black 
with  that  kind  of  pitch  the  kettle  is  also  markt.  Debaters  should 
simply  square  accounts  on  that  score  and  discard  them. 

The  Affirmative 

The  most  ardent  protagonists  of  this  side  are  class-con- 
scious and  manifest  the  class-spirit  as  do  many  supporters  of 
the  other  side.  Debaters  cannot  afford  to  line  up  with  them,  or 
yield  of  the  clap-trap  appeals  which  they  employ.  An  open  and 
straightforward   attack  upon  labor  unions   as  such  has  been 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


123 


found  so  weak  that  even  the  most  ardent  supporters  of  the  open 
shop  take  occasion  to  protest  their  readiness  to  accept  the 
"right  kind  of  unions". 

On  the  other  hand,  the  labor  unions  have  been  convicted 
of  excesses  and  arbitrary  use  of  the  power  which  the  fortunes 
of  the  late  war  afforded  them.  The  affirmative  has  the  right  to 
make  the  most  of  that  fact,  and  the  negative  will  do  well  to 
concede  it.  The  test  of  argument  will  come  when  the  bearing 
of  this  fact  upon  the  question  of  open  shop  is  showd.  Will 
the  open  shop  reduce  to  impotence  or  destroy  the  trade  union? 
The  affirmative  cannot  leave  that  question  out  of  consideration. 
He  will  not  get  very  far  in  his  program  for  ridding  the  house 
of  vermin  who  can  only  propose  that  the  house  shall  be  burnd 
down.  The  end,  desirable  as  it  may  be,  does  not  justify  the 
proposed  means. 

The  Negative 

It  is  a  question  how  far  the  negative  must  go  in  providing 
an  alternative  plan  of  industrial  organiaztion,  supposing  he  can 
prove  that  the  open  shop  plan  is  not  desirable.  The  affirmative 
may  insist  that  American  industry  should  not  be  left  a  prey  to 
the  reasonable  anticipated  altenatives.  The  Negative  may  be 
thus  forced  to  be  positive,  if  the  paradox  may  be  permitted. 

What  is  the  alternative?  The  closed  shop?  The  stoutest 
opponents  of  the  open  shop  are  not  prepared  to  accept  the  alter- 
native, at  least  under  that  term.  The  trade  unionists  says  the 
alternative  is  the  union  shop,  What  is  that?  Is  it  not  closed 
to  all  except  unionists?  Does  not  every  orthodox  unionist  aim 
finally  at  the  hundred-per-cent  union  shop?  Must  he  not  ac- 
cept responsibility  for  the  evils  which  may  be  demonstrated  to 
inhere  in  his  aim,  even  though  all  those  evils  do  not  appear  in 
the.  partly  open,  partly  closed  shop?  Is  not  the  program  of 
the  unions  a  laying  of  the  lines  of  a  battle  from  which  there  is 
no  final  retreat  until  one  host  is  victor  and  the  other  is  van- 
quisht?  And  must  not  the  unionist  accept  the  onus  of  all  which 
will  happen  if  the  unions  are  completely  victorious? 

Tertium  Quid 

Those  of  you  who  are  studying  Latin  will  readily  translate 
this  expression.  It  means  a  third  something.  Usually  the  third 
something  is  what  neither  of  the  parties  to  a  hot  partisan  fight 
are  prepard  to  accept.    Each  insists  that  it  shall  have  the  com- 


124  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 


plete  victory.  And  in  this  debate  the  question  is  so  worded 
that  one  side  or  the  other  must  win.  At  least  one  team  of  de- 
baters must  win  and  the  other  lose. 

It  does  not  follow  that  one  side  of  the  question  or  the 
other  will  certainly  win  and  the  other  lose.  When  the  public 
steps  in,  as  it  must  in  the  end,  to  adjudicate  this  controversy, 
either  through  governmental  agencies  or  otherwise,  will  the 
resulting  industrial  organization  be  either  an  open  or  a  closed 
shop?   Will  it  not  be  neither?    Will  it  not  be  both? 

Just  what  that  form  or  organization  will  be  nobody  knows. 
At  least  nobody  can  convince  all  the  rest  that  he  knows.  And 
the  discovery  is  beside  our  present  point.  A  great  variety  of 
experiments  are  now  being  made  in  this,  that  and  the  other  in- 
dut  try  which  aims  to  set  aside  the  controversy  involvd  in  our 
debate,  and  avoid  meeting  the  issue  it  raises.  A  large  pro- 
portion of  the  public  is  disposed  to  call  down  the  plague  upon 
both  contestants,  and  is  casting  about  for  a  program  which  will 
eliminate  the  clamor  of  both. 

Many  level-headed  students  of  American  industry  believe 
these  experiments  are  hopeful  as  furnishing  some  side  lights 
on  the  real  issue,  but  that  none  can  fully  meet  the  crisis.  Per- 
haps the  only  way  to  industrial  peace  is  through  a  more  or  less 
decided  victory  for  one  party  or  the  other.  But  the  realization 
that  an  increasing  number  of  students  have  grown  hopeless  of 
that  sort  of  a  peace,  should  at  least  keep  our  debaters  more  level- 
headed in  their  discussion.  As  urgd  in  another  connection,  we 
all  should  rise  above  the  clap-trap  which  has  been  much  too 
often  employd  by  both  sides.  Whatever  partisans  on  either  side 
may  think,  a  great  many  people  who  have  a  right  to  an  opinion 
and  who  have  the  power  to  back  up  their  opinions  in  the  end, 
believe  that  neither  group  of  partisans  has  the  right  or  the 
power  to  win.  They  do  not  propose  that  our  society  shall  be 
the  prey  of  the  kind  of  warfare  which  this  controversy  has  pre- 
cipitated in  our  industrial  field.  All  citizens  are  finally  con- 
cernd,  and  a  great  number  are  disposed  not  to  allow  the  pres- 
ent endless  conflict  to  go  on.  Both  spoild  children  may  be  sent 
supperless  to  bed. 

So,  our  debaters  should  not  under  any  circumstances  join 
the  group  of  spoild  children,  but  debate  this  question  as  the 
serious-minded  and  well-balanct  citizens  whom  they  will  show 
themselves  to  be  as  soon  as  they  take  their  full  part  in  the  social, 
political  and  industrial  body. 


THE  OPEN  SHOP 


125 


You  will  find  that  every  bit  of  conscientious  study  you  put 
in  on  this  question  will  repay  you  over  and  over  again,  now 
and  next  year  and  to  the  end  of  your  days.  Master  the  subject 
and  yourself.  You  then  will  win,  whatever  the  judges  or  the 
audience  have  to  say  about  the  results. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  OK.LAHOMA  BULLETIN 


The  University  Bulletin  has  been  established  by  the  «m- 
-fcrsity.  The  reasons  that  have  led  to  such  a  step  are;  first, 
to  provide  a  means  to  set  before  the  people  of  Oklahoma,  from 
time  to  time,  information  about  the  work  of  the  diilcrent  de- 
partments of  the  university;  and  second,  to  provide  a  way  for 
the  publishing  of  reports,  papers,  theses,  and  such  other  matter 
as  the  university  believes  would  be  helpful  to  the  cause  of  edit- 
ektion  in  our  state.  The  Bulletin  will  be  sent  post  free  to  aii 
who  apply  for  it.  The  univei  Aiy  desires  especially  to  exchange 
with  other  schools  and  colleges  for  similar  publications' 

Communications  should  be  addressed; 
THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OKLAHOMA 
University  Hali 
Norman,  Oklahoma 

University  of  Oklahoma  Bulletin,  publishco  by  th«  uni?«ii 
sity,  is  JHSued  serxii-rnonthly.    Entered  ar  the  postoffic**  at  Kci 
wan,  as  second  class  matter,  under  act  of  congress  of  AuguM 
?4,  1912.    Accepted  for  mailing  ixt  special  rate  of  po^ir^gt,  as 
provided  for  in  Section  1103,  act  of  October  3rd,  1917  awtho*  la 
ri  0*11  July  Sth. 


